Cultural Greenspaces: Synthesizing Knowledge and Experience in Nova Scotia’s African-Canadian Communities through Participatory Research and SoftGIS

Abstract

Greenspaces are integral components of communities and provide numerous benefits. However, human development threatens these spaces, particularly in communities of color where histories of racial injustice persist and environmental vulnerabilities remain. A step towards preventing the loss of important cultural greenspaces is documenting knowledge and experience. This research employed community-based participatory techniques to study the relationship between the landscape and African-Canadian communities around Preston, Nova Scotia, the oldest and largest in Canada. Community-directed meetings created collaborative-based knowledge about perceptions surrounding land use change while identifying valued greenspaces. This paper studies the relationships between the community’s greenspaces and the benefits to psychological, social, and physical aspects of human wellbeing. This relationship is operationalized through the use of a public participation geographic information system (PPGIS), SoftGIS, which activates the greenspace–human wellbeing relationship through interaction and its map-based survey data collection. Results indicate residents predominately visited greenspaces near a church or community center for social wellbeing benefits to interact with neighbors and friends, to cookout, or to bring children outside. This research contributes to a greater understanding of the Preston area’s greenspace identification and qualification, resident behavior, and cultural perspectives to inform strategies and goals for engaging government agencies surrounding policy and land use planning. This research illustrates frameworks for improving building capacity and promoting racial equity within the urbanization process in other communities.

1. Introduction

Urban development is an increasingly significant issue as metropolitan areas expand rapidly, and addressing racial inequality is an important component of urban expansion. Studies of growing urban areas around the globe have revealed a pattern of inequality in which minority-concentrated communities have less access to health-promoting amenities such as greenspaces (Chen 2020). Research clearly documents the multiple benefits greenspaces provide humans, however, environmental risk and vulnerability still exist within many ethnic communities, particularly Black or African-descended groups, and threats to landscape change, greenspace degradation, and the loss of culturally significant spaces continue.

Contact with the natural environment such as urban greenspace is a fundamental component of human wellbeing (Wilson 1984). The role of greenspace must better respond to human wellbeing constructs in order to increase the capacity for shaping healthier and resilient communities. Urban planning and land use policy require comprehensive information in order to support effective decision-making.

There is an increasing need for contextualized research approaches in which the focus is directed toward a real-life event and embedded in a locally meaningful context (Gobster et al. 2007). Ecological and spatial planning knowledge must be inclusive of the residents’ use of their environment (Kahila and Kyttä 2006). The cultural role of greenspaces and the spatial documentation of these valued greenspaces is an important outcome of this research and critical to understand in the face of urban development within marginalized communities as well as reduce future environmental vulnerability while increasing internal empowerment.

Yet, moving current practice in greenspace and land use planning towards a more inclusive approach poses many challenges, such as the need for more and diverse perspectives from the users, information about greenspace functions and benefits, as well as more inclusive approaches to community engagement and data collection (Kabisch et al. 2022; Czembrowski et al. 2019). Human wellbeing is evidently linked to the environment, however, it remains difficult to assess human behavior within those environments and how greenspaces specifically contribute towards human health and the wellbeing of the people engaged with them (Hansen and Pauleit 2014).

This study focused on the small towns around North Preston, Nova Scotia, the oldest and largest Black community in Canada, as well as having the highest concentration of African-Canadians (Halifax Municipal Government 2021). This community has a history of environmental racism and land appropriation (Waldron 2016, 2018; Porter 2017; Sehatzadeh 2008; Este 2007; Hudson 2003; Saney 1998), and mistrust towards the government and outsiders is prevalent in this community (Simmonds 2014; Sehatzadeh 2008; Whitfield 2008).

The purpose of this research was to increase the understanding of this minority community’s relationship to their greenspaces, open spaces, and natural areas. This study collected interactional behavior specific to human wellbeing benefits such as health, reduced stress, sociability, and others. This research employed a community participatory approach to collect information including the history of environmental risk, concerns for landscape change and governmental action, and greenspace value. The data was used to document, spatially and aspatially, the socio-cultural use of greenspaces in order to inform future strategies for municipal communication and land use planning, while also improving community cohesion and resilience.

This study’s research questions are:

• What are the most acceptable methods to engagement and participatory research in minority communities which create accurate and meaningful knowledge?
• For the African-Canadian communities around North Preston, Nova Scotia, where are the most visited greenspaces and what benefits are received through interaction?

This paper is structured as follows: First, a literature review surrounding the interrelationship of greenspace and human wellbeing frame this study’s approach to documenting cultural greenspace value. Second, community-based knowledge development and contextual approaches to engage marginalized communities are reviewed. Third, specific community engagement techniques were applied to a study area to collect and analyze data. Fourth, information was synthesized and results were tabulated followed by their discussion. Reflection on the community engagement process and future recommendations for more inclusive land use planning for this community are included in the conclusion.

1.1. Environmental Risk and Vulnerability in the Urbanizing Landscape

Urban development is a significant issue as metropolitan areas expand (Wikantiyoso and Suhartono 2018). Addressing inequality is important as many minority-concentrated communities encompass elevated levels of vulnerability. They are more likely to be exposed to environmental risks and hazards, and experience negative health outcomes (Bullard and Johnson 2009). Residents with reduced greenspace access are impacted by airborne pollution, degraded water quality, and high utility costs (Rahman and Zhang 2018). Urban development increases impervious paved surfaces, stormwater risks, and heat-island effect. Urbanization impacts greenspaces, most notably their physical characteristics through land cover change, land use transition, and fragmentation (leBrasseur 2018; Bogaert et al. 2005). Greenspace resources, such as parks and open spaces, are important assets for wellbeing factors. Greenspaces provide residents with physical, social, and psychological health benefits through various mechanisms such as physical activity, places to relax, and social interaction (e.g., Triguero-Mas et al. 2015). However, greenspaces are often unequally spatially distributed among White and Black communities, illustrating impacts of environmental justice (e.g., Boone et al. 2009; Wolch et al. 2014).

According to Jenerette et al. (2011), vulnerability is a joint consequence of an individual’s socio-spatial orientation within a particular landscape, as well as the coping mechanisms that are available to them. Previous research suggests that the vulnerability of Black communities may be partially associated with their tendency to reside in areas with decreased vegetation, which exposes them to higher temperatures and increases susceptibility to negative health outcomes (Jenerette et al. 2011). In the case of vegetative cover, marginalized residents’ lack of resources to purchase and maintain vegetation results in a dependence on public investments (Heynen et al. 2006). This trend persists with other public greenspace amenities. In a study of the social value of accessible greenspace, Wen et al. (2013) found that persistent residential segregation by race/ethnicity was associated with disparities in the ability of urban residents to meet physical activity recommendations. This suggests that minority-concentrated communities are underexposed to the positive externalities of parks and greenspaces. The availability of excess or unnecessary greenspaces to empowered groups may also reduce greenspace provision to Black communities within the larger greenspace system (Jenerette et al. 2011).

This paper does not analyze greenspace accessibility, an important concept well researched within environmental justice and equity literature. Additionally, this paper does not focus on defining and assessing environmental justice (Vaughan et al. 2013) or environmental racism (Bryant 1995); these important concepts require mentioning to frame the study’s context and open avenues for future research, and to enable participatory pathways.

The interaction with greenspaces is an important factor in human health and wellbeing. However, greenspaces are often unequally distributed among White and Black communities (e.g., Boone et al. 2009; Wolch et al. 2014). Whiter, wealthier neighborhoods have historically benefited from investment in trees, parks, and other greenspaces (TPL 2020) while Black ones have not (Joassart-Marcelli et al. 2011). In Baltimore, Boone et al. (2009) reported that although Blacks were more likely to live close to a park, White groups actually had more total acres within proximity. In addition to lower prevalence, these neighborhoods had lower quality and usability of greenspaces (Wen et al. 2013; Schwarz et al. 2015). Reduced quantity and access prevent disadvantaged populations from the benefits that greenspaces provide to health, many of which are independent of sociodemographic variables (Schertz et al. 2021).

Even nearby and readily accessible greenspaces may go unused by various groups. Though this is generally attributed to various socio-cultural (e.g., cultural preferences) and socio-spatial reasons (e.g., distance, greenspace amenities), environmental justice may have a significant role. For example, a greenspace or park may be viewed as unsafe or ‘belonging’ to another community group (Stodolska et al. 2011; Burgess 1996). A study with Latinos in Los Angeles showed that ethno-racial groups and their history of segregated greenspace use dictated community access and use (Byrne 2012). The dimensions of such challenges will vary from place to place but are apt to have long-term implications for health and wellbeing.

Lipsitz (2007) uses the concept “racialization of space” to describe how differences related to race, income, and varied social identities are spatially organized in ways that create hierarchical relations among various groups. A “white spatial imaginary” confers to white people advantages in the form of valued opportunities, life opportunities, and goods and resources. Space is more than a geographical area but also a socially constructed infrastructure with varied socio-political meanings and economic histories (Teelucksingh and Masuda 2014) ultimately creating a unique sense of place (McKittrick 2011).

1.2. Greenspaces and Human Wellbeing

A breadth of literature across multiple disciplines discusses the influences of greenspace upon human wellbeing, often through the lens of ecosystem services (e.g., Bogaert et al. 2005) such as air quality, water infiltration, and carbon offset, among others. However, research encompassing the human-based benefits and impacts such as wellbeing and human welfare, particularly beyond public health spheres, and specific to marginalized communities is limited, especially as related to spatial planning and policy decisions.

Human wellbeing (HWB) remains an ambiguous concept, without a universally agreed definition and often faced with dissimilar interpretations (e.g., Dolan et al. 2011). In this regard, HWB must be regarded as a multidimensional concept (e.g., McGillivray and Clarke 2006). The World Health Organization defines HWB as: “To reach a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing, an individual or group must be able to realize aspirations, to satisfy needs, and to change or cope with the environment. Health is, therefore, seen as a resource for everyday life, not the objective of living. Health is a positive concept emphasizing social and personal resources as well as physical capacities” (World Health Organization 2010).

Research often equates wellbeing with these aforementioned other components or constructs. Not only does this discount the diversity of characteristics of wellbeing, it also omits other important aspects. As a result, Gasper (2009) argued that new measures need to respect the diversity of wellbeing. The literature classifies measures of HWB into two categorizations: objective and subjective measures. Objective wellbeing is measured through factors such as economic, social, and environmental statistics, typically with cardinal metrics. Subjective wellbeing, alternatively, is measured through the individual’s feelings or experiences, with ordinal metrics (McGillivray and Clarke 2006) and is considered to be more direct measures of an individual’s wellbeing. HWB, thus, is primarily a subjective measure within the social sciences (Diener 2009), and is influenced not only by life conditions and prior experiences, but also by personal values (Keith 2001).

Contact with the natural environment such as greenspace is a fundamental component of HWB. Matsuoka and Kaplan (2008) reviewed 90 studies from the scientific journal Landscape and Urban Planning, and like Coppel and Wüstemann’s (2017) analysis concluded there was strong evidence that greenspace is important for HWB. The World Health Organization’s (2010) Parma Declaration on Environment and Health included a commitment to providing each child with “access to healthy and safe environments”, including “greenspaces”. This aim of ensuring access to “safe and inclusive greenspaces” is further supported by the United Nation’s (UN) 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with SDG 11.7 setting the target that “by 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, particularly for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities”. Greenspace is, moreover, embedded within the WHO Health 2020 European Health Policy Framework under the priority area of creating “supportive environments and resilient communities”.

Wellbeing is understood as a state of health, happiness, and prosperity. As noted by the Canadian Index of Wellbeing, it is “The presence of the highest possible quality of life in its full breadth of expression focused on but not necessarily exclusive to: good living standards, robust health, a sustainable environment, vital communities, an educated populace, balanced time use, high levels of democratic participation, and access to and participation in leisure and culture” (Michalos et al. 2010). In Canada, a 2004 national survey concluded community involvement presented an opportunity for improved greenspace protection (Lindsay 2004). In British Columbia, the Ministry of Health’s Plan H (Health) confirmed interaction with greenspaces and nature improved physical, emotional, and social health. Alberta government’s “Wellness Planning” reported greenspaces are critical in establishing healthy communities.

As evidenced, greenspaces provide many benefits to humans, such as places for social activities, physical exercise areas, and more contemplative spaces to connect with nature (Lachowycz and Jones 2013). This research will focus on the social, physical, and psychological HWB benefits received from interaction with greenspaces. Three domains of wellbeing as an outcome of interaction in greenspaces dominate literature and are the focus of this research:

• Emotional Wellbeing (e.g., happiness, enjoyment, free from stress);
• Physical Wellbeing (e.g., leisure, safety, health, relaxing outdoor activities), and
• Social Wellbeing (e.g., community interaction, support, sense of appreciation).

Notably, emotional wellbeing is inclusive of concepts and definitions of psychological wellbeing (Bradburn 1969; World Health Organization 2010) and not identified as a separate construct. Social wellbeing relates to social interactions at community or societal level and relationships with others on a one-to-one, small group or family level. Physical wellbeing relates to the functioning of the physical body and is affected by disease and injury, often equating to physical health.

1.2.1. Psychological Wellbeing

A variety of greenspaces have been shown to provide psychological benefits, including both naturalistic typologies as well as more urban ones (Grafius et al. 2018; Park et al. 2011). Additional psychological benefits of GS interaction include recovery from stress, reduction in depression (Astell-Burt and Feng 2019), reduction in both stress levels and ADHD in children (McCormick 2017), increased peacefulness and tranquility (Marafa et al. 2018), fewer reported stress-related illnesses (Reklaitiene et al. 2014) and reduced mortality (Heo and Bell 2019). A significant body of work by Kaplan and Kaplan (2011) provides evidence that greenspace interaction reduces mental fatigue and stress. Hartig (2004) refers to “mental restoration” as important for human wellbeing. Additionally, greenspaces provide opportunities where users can meet, talk, play, exercise, and socialize, creating opportunities for people of all ages to interact, increasing social health (Baycan-Levent and Nijkamp 2009), and providing a sense of connectedness (Peters et al. 2010), meaning and purpose, thus reducing depressive symptoms (Kondo et al. 2018).

1.2.2. Physical Wellbeing

Literature has shown the positive and direct benefits to human physical health arising from use of and interaction with greenspace and include concepts of physical health, obesity reduction, increased recovery rates, and others (e.g., Tyrväinen et al. 2005; Cooper Marcus 2005) including better pregnancy (Sun et al. 2020). Recreational parks provide opportunities for healthy physical activity and the relief of stress (Hunter et al. 2017).

1.2.3. Social Wellbeing

Another important aspect of greenspace interaction is the social and socio-cultural benefits to wellbeing. This benefit is primarily met through an exchange or interaction between individuals or groups, often through communication such as talking, or gatherings such as picnics, games, etc. (Thomas 2011). Social ties among individuals, neighbors, and members of groups are important to wellbeing (Chiesura 2004). Greenspaces provide places for people to meet and develop social connections (Larson and Hipp 2022). Social cohesion is defined as the ties that bind humans together in society and have a large bearing on individual wellbeing and the wellbeing of the larger community (Poortinga 2006). A study by Maas et al. (2009) found that less greenspace in the environment coincided with feelings of loneliness and with a perceived decrease in social support. Similarly, social safety is perceived as being increased with the presence of greenspace (Sullivan et al. 2005), excluding dense urban areas, where enclosed greenspaces are associated with a lack of safety and security. Additionally, greenspaces, open spaces, and natural areas encourage a sense of community (Gomez et al. 2015), social cohesion (Sugiyama et al. 2008), and also offer areas for outdoor education and learning (Bell et al. 2008). Greenspaces are also associated with higher levels of social contact and increased feelings of social support among neighbors (Jennings and Bamkole 2019), and social interaction between multi-cultural individuals (Mahasin and Roux 2010). Greenspaces were stated by Georg Simmel to serve as “everyday social settings” (Lechner 1991) which include casual interaction afforded through such local features as markets, parks, residential squares, and sitting-out areas, or journeys on foot to a school or workplace, all incorporating positively to perceptions of inclusion and a sense of community (Leavell et al. 2019). Public parks allow for spontaneous interaction or the “meeting of strangers” (Vårheim 2017). Informal social contact with other individuals increases psychological and social wellbeing (Kweon et al. 1998) and overall social relationships (Douglas et al. 2017).

The anthropocentric benefits of green spaces are well studied, but less so specific to ethnic communities. The dissimilarity in the perceptions and use of greenspace by ethnicity has been primarily in the United States within urban contexts focusing on racial and socio-economic factors in greenspace accessibility (Dai 2011) and outdoor recreation motivation (Gobster 2002). Environmental justice research within race-related contexts focus on explaining the differences in experience between dominant (White) and marginalized (non-White) groups. Such race-based research requires accurately defined populations to avoid such overarching categories as ‘minority’ or ‘ethnic’ in order to best understand the ways in which being a non-White person impacts an individual’s behavior and attitudes toward utilizing greenspaces (Kivel et al. 2009).

Overall, these three wellbeing constructs provide the critical dimensions of HWB found within the greenspace–human relationship and serve to simply categorize the types of benefits and interaction with greenspace that affect HWB to the best degree possible. The concept of ecosystem services (ES) or natural capital (Smith et al. 2013; MEA 2005; Costanza et al. 1997) is prevalent within literature when articulating such relationships, but is limited in social sciences by subjective measurements and human responses in that ecological processes are conceptually translated into value-laden entities or components (Costanza et al. 2014). The concept for ES grew from economic-based goals within conservation. Hence, the ES ‘value’ is viewed as indiscriminate—for all people of all characteristics, though recent advances are more contextual (Andersson et al. 2021; Maund et al. 2020). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’s (MEA) classification system is prominent within literature and provided an expanded classification system (MEA 2005) for analysis of value to include ‘cultural’ services and ‘non-material benefits’ people receive from nature: “… ecosystem services are components of nature directly enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield human wellbeing” (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007).

The MEA’s definition of cultural ecosystem services thus includes cultural meaning, recreation, psychophysiological, and spiritual fulfillment (MEA 2005). These cultural benefits do not fit Boyd and Banzhaf’s economic valuation perspective but are nonetheless important to meet ecosystem service necessities of ‘wellbeing’ and ‘human welfare’ and cannot simply be disregarded. However, much of the benefit humans receive from cultural ecological services and the landscape do not have an agreed upon quantitative measurement or valuation. It is this concept of “cultural goods and services” (UNESCO 2004) that provide the framework for a comprehensive suite of human benefits received from the landscape and its greenspaces including aspects of wellbeing.

1.3. Transactional Relationships: A Framework for Studying Human Wellbeing and Greenspace Interaction across Cultures

The evidence that greenspace positively affects human wellbeing (HWB) is convincing but research is not clear on the mechanisms or processes that activate this relationship (e.g., Korpela et al. 2014; Van Herzele and de Vries 2012). Place-based research on HWB has always proved difficult to measure and correlate; understanding where, how, and for whom greenspaces and other environments provide which specific benefit is complex. The theory for transactionalism was founded by William James and John Dewey (Heft 2001). The ‘transactional’ approach studies person–environment systems, formed and defined by the simultaneous and combined action (Altman 1987), where the complex dynamic relationship between individuals and the environment is mutual (Heft 2010). Excluding human cognition and perception, the transactional paradigm adequately reflects the interactional relationship of the human’s active role in the environment and is thus able to inform land use planning practices and policy.

1.4. Community Engagement and Knowledge Transfer

While reconciling racial disparities is increasingly a focus of local legislators and policymakers, the incorporation of relevant information and data collection methods remains a challenge. Community engagement is common in land use planning and policymaking. Many community engagement strategies exist such as educational sessions, workshops, stakeholder surveys, community mapping, and others. Each bring their own unique set of barriers to collecting and integrating knowledge, e.g., language and interpreter requirements, venue, transportation and accessibility, facilitator distrust, confusing engagement and outreach activities, integration level, questionnaire bias, media reporting (Turin et al. 2021). Difficulties exist within any type of community engagement. Communities may be skeptical of outsiders’ involvement (Harrington et al. 2019) and may be reluctant to share information (Jagosh et al. 2015). The researcher, or expert, may not be fully integrated into the engagement process from the onset. Lastly, the knowledge generated may not be easily reformatted or applied towards policy change or land use decisions (Kapucu 2016).

Ethnographic approaches to community knowledge acquisition are well researched and applied (Atkinson and Morriss 2017; Van Maanen 2011), particularly as a means of engaged scholarship and a way to produce knowledge that helps to bring about social change (Fleming and Banerjee 2016). Though most community engagement approaches are inclusive of ethnographic principles (Dutta 2016), recent community collaborative approaches focus on embedded knowledge acquisition (Bansal et al. 2018) where equal positioning among researcher and participant and the modes of reflexive knowledge production (Niewöhner 2016) are at the forefront. Furthermore, this study did not produce significant narrative output.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) and integrated knowledge translation (IKT) are research approaches that emphasize the importance of creating partnerships between researchers and the people for whom the research is ultimately meant to be of use (‘knowledge users’). These are a ‘user driven’ and action-oriented approach to research (i.e., focused on influencing policy and practice) originally developed to “emphasize the participation, influence, and control by non-academic researchers in the process of creating knowledge and change” (Israel et al. 1998, p. 175).

Community-based research (CBR) (e.g., action research, participatory research, community-based participatory research) is an approach which addresses complex health, social, and environmental problems (Flicker et al. 2008). Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a more user-centered, community-driven approach which addresses many concerns within communities including health, race, planning, policy, and other social-related problems. CBPR provides a framework to equitably involve researchers, community members, and other stakeholders in the knowledge generation and research process, recognizing and maximizing the value of their unique contributions (Wallerstein and Duran 2006).

CBPR is a collaborative research approach that involves community members throughout the research process. It requires the involvement of community members at every stage, including research design, data collection and analysis, and knowledge dissemination, transfer, and mobilization. CBPR is a research approach that advocates co-learning between diverse stakeholders, capacity building, and balancing research and action (Minkler and Wallerstein 2011). It involves researchers and communities working in partnership in ways that enable knowledge and capacity to be shared equally and contextually.

Through community engagement, the aim of CBPR is to combine knowledge and action to create positive change. CBPR builds knowledge by removing traditional top-down communication towards more flexible, cooperative knowledge creation. CBPR is an effective tool to promote sustainable community development which takes into account, and addresses, multiple human needs, not just one at the exclusion of others (Valencia-Sandoval et al. 2010), and is based on local knowledge and experience (Roseland 2000). CBPR often leads to creating new partnerships within the community, reducing stakeholder conflict and leading to increased trust (Christopher et al. 2008) and, particularly within marginalized communities, levels of community empowerment (Freire 1970).

Challenges exist when linking community-based research evidence to planning action and policy. Lavis et al. (2006) note: 1. Research evidence is one of many factors to consider; 2. Decision-makers may not value research evidence; 3. Research evidence may not be relevant to certain audiences or decision-makers, and 4. Research evidence may be complicated to comprehend and apply meaningfully. Furthermore, CBPR is time consuming for the researcher and communities involved (D’Alonzo 2010). However, through a multi-faceted and interactive knowledge translation and transfer strategy, most challenges can be addressed to allow research evidence to support the decision-making processes.

Knowledge translation (KT), or the ‘knowledge to action’ process, is defined by the CIHR (2016) as: “a dynamic and iterative process that includes synthesis, dissemination, exchange and the ethically sound application of knowledge to improve the health of Canadians. This process takes place within the interactions between researchers and knowledge users which may vary in intensity, complexity and level of engagement depending on the nature of the research and the findings as well as the needs of the particular knowledge user” [para 4]. However, new approaches to KT stress the importance of knowledge production—or contribution—to the knowledge interaction process (Van de Ven and Johnson 2006). Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) addresses knowledge generation gaps found in traditional surveys or other community-based research (CBR) (Kreindler 2018). IKT is a model of research co-production, whereby researchers partner with knowledge users throughout the research process and such knowledge generated can be used for recommendations in practice or policy. IKT approaches improve the relevance and impact of research (Boland et al. 2020). CBPR and IKT offer a means to synthesize important information to meaningful results and actions from the bottom-up. Other benefits include partnership building for funding (Wilson et al. 2010), community capacity building, and resilience (Hacker et al. 2012).

Difficulties are present within any type of community engagement. Communities may be skeptical of outsiders’ involvement (Harrington et al. 2019) and may be reluctant to share information (Jagosh et al. 2015). Furthermore, the knowledge generated may not be easily reformatted or applied towards policy change or land use decisions (i.e., action) (Kapucu 2016). Overall, the practices of CBPR and IKT deliver means toward a common aim: the co-creation of knowledge that is a direct result of those users sharing knowledge and researcher expertise to coalesce that knowledge appropriately. The aim of these practices is to create positive, transformative, and sustainable change, together with, for, and in communities.

Ultimately, effective types of CBPR and IKT are contextual to the communities and people need to develop evidence-based information. Within marginalized communities, research has shown that those involved with CBPR and IKT reduce stakeholder conflict (Haddaway et al. 2017), facilitate community cohesion in minority communities (George et al. 2014), and increase the relevance of the research evidence produced in producing desired outcomes (Boland et al. 2020; Nguyen et al. 2020; Flicker et al. 2005; Mosavel et al. 2005; Potvin et al. 2003).

1.5. Tools for Community Greenspace Knowledge Translation

Community planning knowledge must be inclusive of the residents’ concerns and use of their environment. Although the importance of greenspace quality (e.g., level of maintenance, vegetation, amenities) has been recognized and is well-documented, research on greenspaces has traditionally focused on their physical and spatial aspects such as availability, accessibility, and proximity to residents (Bedimo-Rung et al. 2005). Most current research studies greenspace spatial distribution to measure greenspace quality and the relationships between greenspace access, activities, and beneficial outcomes (e.g., Ward Thompson et al. 2016; Cohen-Cline et al. 2015; Ord et al. 2013). Contemporary landscapes are defined through human interaction, thus a methodology that clarifies and analyzes that relationship is appropriate. As greenspace interactions and benefits can be so diverse, it is important that communities and researchers spatially document such greenspaces and their relationships correctly and accurately to the best degree possible. Traditional questionnaires explore qualities of the landscape primarily through preferences or other value-based perceptions of spaces in order to inform planning decisions. However, such a subjective methodology allows for misinterpretation and the synthesis of unreliable data (Linneberg and Korsgaard 2019).

The transactional paradigm provides a means to measure explicit ‘in situ’ actions. This research’s operational transactional model provides for clear subjective (i.e., contextual) and objective (i.e., transactional) experiences within the landscape and is useful for the study in determining the functional properties of the greenspace, and how individuals use the landscape and its greenspaces to enhance their physical, social, and psychological wellbeing.

For example, Kyttä (2002) applied transactionalism towards another functional aspect of the landscape—the social aspects of HWB in children such as interaction and bonding. Similarly, Clark and Uzzell (2006) presented the town center as an important space for teenagers due to the social opportunities it affords. Transactional theory applications are not limited to children’s environments; studies have utilized greenspaces, rivers and streams, and other natural, semi-natural, semi-urban, and urban environments (Araújo et al. 2019; Ward-Thompson and Travlou 2009; Said and Bakar 2005). Though explicit transactional human–environment studies are limited within marginalized or ethnic communities, transactionalism removes many racial inequalities and bias (Graves et al. 2022; Quintana and Mahgoub 2016).

Measuring Human Wellbeing Transactional Benefits through SoftGIS

Participatory mapping has been a well-practiced exercise within spatial planning to attach human value and preference to places (Corbett and Keller 2005) in a variety of contexts and completed with variable levels of success. Only relatively recently, however, has geospatial technology provided a more explicit means to express relationships between humans and place (Jankowski et al. 2016). Geo-questionnaires, found within constructs of participatory geographical information systems (PGIS) and public participation geographical information systems (PPGIS) (Dunn 2007), involve a real-time, map-based interactional means to convey this relationship and promote communicative planning.

PPGIS methods are used in applied landscape research because of their ability to engage users and capture spatially explicit information on landscape values that can be integrated with existing planning approaches (Brown 2012; Van Herzele and van Woerkum 2011). The map-based methodology of SoftGIS developed by Kahila and Kyttä (2006) is a geo-coded or spatially explicit social survey and most directly appropriates real-world phenomena such as human behavior. SoftGIS is a field of geographic information science that uses geospatial technology by the public such as mapping to participate in public engagement (Tulloch 2008).

Traditional questionnaires explore qualities of the landscape primarily through preferences or other value-based perceptions of spaces in order to gather information and inform planning decisions. However, this subjective methodology allows for misinterpretation and the synthesis of unreliable data. Geo-questionnaires (GQ) are a specific type of PPGIS (Dunn 2007) to document location-based behaviors to inform a diverse set of questions and the planning processes within communities (Rantanen and Kahila 2009). SoftGIS—a type of GQ—allows for a more direct correlation between space and behavior—here, greenspace and the interactional benefit outcome for HWB.

The SoftGIS transactional paradigm provides a means to measure explicit ‘in situ’ actions which are ‘ex vivo’ or outside the ‘in the brain’ processes of cognitive psychology. This research’s operational model provides for clear subjective (i.e., contextual) and objective (i.e., transactional) experiences within the landscape and is useful for the study in determining the functional properties of the greenspace, and how individuals use the landscape and its greenspaces to enhance their physical, social, and psychological wellbeing. In SoftGIS research, survey participants are able to provide specific locations of greenspaces they visit and interact with, followed by descriptive attributes of what HWB benefit(s) they receive from that interaction. In this regards, the transactional benefit could be accurately documented.

SoftGIS is an effective CBPR and IKT tool which can be used to better understand a community’s relationship to its landscape. Knowing first where and how these greenspaces are used is critical for understanding inequity in greenspace valuation and more racially just urban planning and development. Promoting community development within marginalized communities facing urbanization pressures involves a paradigm shift in the way that the relationship between community engagement, greenspaces, and cultural interaction of those greenspaces are conceptualized.

In summary, it is this research’s interpretation of cultural ecosystem services within the context of greenspace and HWB interaction that allows examination of minority communities and the human–nature relationship through the transactional perspective. The specific objectives of this study include the following:

• To operationalize strategies for enhancing knowledge acquisition through more inclusive community engagement processes;
• To collect and document concerns and perceptions surrounding land use challenges, policy actions, and environmental racism, including the past, present, and future;
• To provide insight on community members’ behaviors within local greenspaces in order to accurately document and map them, and
• To increase stakeholder communication and interaction in order to enhance planning, policy, and the decision-making processes within local government.

Enabling effective knowledge transfer required a unique approach. A significant contribution of this paper is the applied methodology to community engagement specific to this marginalized, insular, and ethnic community. Community-led actions within CBPR were present in all aspects of data generation and application. The collaborative approach to embedded knowledge acquisition was an important action within this community’s social dynamics.

2. Materials and Methods

This study actively co-produced knowledge through participatory research and community leadership and engagement. This study used a mixed-method approach including both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis to generate information. The methodological framework for this study is presented in Figure 1. In Step 1, strategic community engagement and internal leadership led to the formation of a core community advisory board in Step 2. In Step 3, a set of project goals were established. In Step 4, a literature review documenting historical information and current concerns regarding land use change and environmental justice were documented and a geo-questionnaire assessing greenspace interaction to human wellbeing benefits was operationalized. Step 5 included the analysis and synthesis of results co-completed with the advisory board including a greenspace map. Finally, Step 6 outlined a set of next steps for engagement with the Municipality.

2.1. Study Area

The study area includes the communities around the Preston area inclusive of East Preston, North Preston, Cherry Brook, and Lake Loon, Nova Scotia (See Figure 2), referred to herein as the Preston community. The Preston community is located in the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) and includes the Province’s three largest cities: Halifax, Dartmouth, and Bedford. The population for the HRM is 439,819 (Statistics Canada 2022). The Preston community is located 13 km from Dartmouth.

There are 20,790 African-Canadians residing in Nova Scotia (Statistics Canada 2011) which represents 44 percent of the racially visible population, the largest, and 2.3 percent of the total population. Most were born in the Province (80.7%) with 6.7 percent from another Province and 10 percent immigrated from Africa, the Caribbean or United States (Statistics Canada 2011). The Preston community is the oldest and largest Black community in Canada, as well as having the highest concentration of African-Canadians (Halifax Municipal Government 2021). The population for the Preston community was 3223 in 2016 with most being Black (85.4%) (Statistics Canada 2016). The Preston community is considered a suburban and rural community (Figure 3). Though the town boundaries may be large, much of this land is preserved within the Waverley–Salmon River Long Lake Wilderness Area, thereby concentrating the residents to locations along the main roadway, 107, and the Trunk Road 7.

2.2. Procedure

Step 1 required finding champions in the Preston community to assist in project development and was critical to its implementation and success. Community members who participated in prior outreach and engagement projects were directly contacted via email and telephone. Eight community members agreed to serve on an advisory board and provide leadership (Step 2) which included 5 women and 3 men, aged 18 to 74. This advisory board and project leadership was shared with a Canadian University professor and research student, both of whom were Caucasian.

Two meetings were held at a local church within a two-week period to develop and approve project goals. Within the distinct research goal of documenting current perspectives of environmental racism and landscape change to influence future land use and policy action (Step 3), the following goals were co-developed (

Table 1. Preston community project goals.

Goal 1	To collect and integrate various histories of landscape change and experiences in order to succinctly document cultural perspectives and concerns.
Goal 2	To identify and map existing greenspaces, open spaces, and other undocumented outdoor areas which have been and are currently being used by Preston community members for a variety of purposes, regardless of ownership or designation.
Goal 3	To increase the Preston community’s ability to proactively communicate to regional stakeholders and government agencies in order to affect positive change in current and future regional planning and policy.

):

2.3. Community Participation—Landscape Change Historical and Cultural Literature Review

The literature review required the input of both researcher and community to achieve knowledge saturation to the best degree possible. The advisory board gathered information from the community’s personal records and documents, and assisted in reviewing available literature including journal articles, books, op-eds, pictures, art, archives, and other relevant information. This served as the basis to develop a succinct summary of perceptions surrounding environmental racism and environmental justice within the region and community.

It is noted that no new information was collected—no focus groups nor interviews were completed in this research. This is a well-researched and documented topic and did not require further insight or data collection such as narrative interviews or observations. Specifically, this paper did not collect data on the qualities and experience of environmental justice and environmental racism within this community. It only presents a summary of environmental justice, and vulnerability knowledge and perceptions as noted within literature. This serves as a means to clarifying the community’s experiences and enable future concerns to be addressed more succinctly and clearly. This community’s concerns for cultural landscape change include governmental land use planning and the threat of inappropriate land appropriation.

2.4. Community Participation—Cultural Greenspace Geospatial Survey

This community-led engagement activity provided information on how existing open spaces, greenspaces, natural areas, and other unmapped spaces are used by residents. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) techniques, this study measured participants’ greenspace interaction behaviors in the Preston community. The survey’s data collection was operationalized through an on-line, interactive, geo-location-based questionnaire, SoftGIS, as produced by Maptionnaire and Mapita, Inc. SoftGIS is a web-based, interactive tool that allows participants to map and evaluate their interaction or experience with that space. Unlike traditional empirical data collection and sampling captured exclusively through a survey, this research’s questionnaire was digitally map-based (i.e., internet-based) and focused on collecting biophysical-based, geospatial data of specific greenspaces simultaneously with human-based data to inform the human–nature relationship. Specifically, this study’s geo-questionnaire accrued greenspace use interactions and those benefits achieved, and the greenspace physical locations for those interactions (i.e., geocoded and map-based).

This survey was available to anyone over the age of 14 for a 6-week period. Data collection occurred through the digital survey’s URL or web address which was shared via direct email distribution and postings in churches, social media, group messaging, as well as on-site data collection at the local community center. It was estimated to takes 6 to 10 min to complete.

To begin the survey, participants were asked to identify themselves by dropping a geo-locator or ‘marker’ on a Google Maps satellite image, which could be zoomed in and out, on their home location. Once located, a pop-up window appeared asking the participants their gender, age, and if there was the presence of children under the age of 16 in the household. Once completed, a new pop-up window appeared asking participants to drop a marker on their two favorite greenspaces they visit in the Preston area. Once located, they were requested to indicate which activity they most often did during their visit to that greenspace (see

Table 2. Greenspace questionnaire interaction type with coded human wellbeing benefits in italics.

What Do You Most Often Do at This Greenspace When You Visit? Please Check All That Apply.
Box	Greenspace Interaction Activity	Wellbeing Benefit
	Play sports and games, playground, fish, ride bike or scooter.	Physical
	Sit and relax, read, be peaceful and spiritual, enjoy nature, sit in car.	Psychological
	Get together with a group of friends and family, have cookouts.	Social
	Walk the dog.	Physical
	Bring the baby outside or kids to play.	Social
	Socialize with others, hang-out, catch-up or gossip.	Social
	Walk, run, snowmobile, or hike.	Physical
	View wildlife, visit coastline, or be in quiet natural areas.	Psychological

). Multiple activities could be selected for each greenspace marker.

This research focused on the following three types of wellbeing as an outcome of behavioral interaction in the nearby greenspaces:

• Emotional wellbeing (e.g., relaxation, enjoyment, free from stress);
• Physical wellbeing (e.g., leisure, physical activity, outdoor activities), and
• Social wellbeing (e.g., community interaction, support, communication).

As shown in Table 2 on the far-right column, these prescribed activities were then coded post hoc to specific wellbeing benefits—physical, social, or psychological. This column was not visible to the participants. In this regard, the geo-markers represented activity or human behavior as expressed through the responses and coded to specific human wellbeing benefits. This specific coding has been used in PPGIS surveys on greenspace interaction (leBrasseur 2018; Korpela et al. 2014; Kahila and Kyttä 2006; Rantanen and Kahila 2009; Tyrväinen et al. 2007).

3. Results

The results for this study, including the literature review summary, were reviewed, discussed, and analyzed, and ultimately approved by the community advisory board, an important part of the CBPR approach.

3.1. Historical and Cultural Literature Review Results

The literature surrounding landscape change and its relationship to environmental justice for the Preston community is well documented and illustrates a history of social and landscape challenges. African Nova Scotia historical culture for the Preston area began in the late 18th century with Black Loyalists and the Jamaican Maroons. During the American Revolution, people of African descent were promised freedom in exchange for fighting for Britain, referred to as the Black Loyalists, and were transported to new locations across eastern Canada. Shortly thereafter, they were denied their freedom and equal status, and forced to work on public projects. Some were even sent to England, Germany, and Belgium (Waldron 2015).

The Maroons were the name given to the Jamaicans who opposed the British invasion to impose slavery and resource extraction. After the second Maroon War ended in 1796, about 600 Jamaican Maroons were forced to settle in the Preston area after betrayal and deportation by the British. The Nova Scotian winters proved unbearable; their prior military-based farming experience was unsuitable, and by 1800, almost all left for the British colony of Sierra Leone. A small number of Black Refugees, both freed African-American slaves and those moved through the Underground Railroad, settled in the Preston area during the early to mid-1800s. The majority of Indigenous African Nova Scotians continue to reside in rural communities as a result of historical racism during the Province’s early settlement (Figure 4) (Waldron 2015).

Nearby, in the Bedford Basin, the town of Africville, settled in the early 1800s, struggled with poverty and poor health conditions in the 1950s due to the Municipality using the area as an industrial site and waste-treatment facility while not providing basic infrastructure and services (Nelson 2001). In the late 1960s, the whole community was forcibly relocated after the land was condemned for bridge and highway construction (Figure 5). Additionally, in 1974, the Minister of Environment opened a first-generation landfill one kilometer from the small African community of Lincolnville, in Guysborough County, without consultation or inclusive procedure, even utilizing intimidation tactics (Deacon and Baxter 2013). In the 1990s, nearly 30% of Nova Scotian African-Canadians lived within 5 km of a dump or waste site (Fryzuk 1996).

In the mid-1970s, Dartmouth’s water contamination in the nearby Lake Major was attributed to the Preston area communities. Of the two government-proposed plans—remove the community or rebuild the community—the economic redevelopment option was undertaken. This included many government initiatives, most were not appropriate for the impoverished, under-educated residents. The economic growth and stability never occurred; with profits and even land ownership seemingly funneled to government agencies (Kimber 1981).

More recently, the Municipality proposed a dump location in East Lake, adjacent to North Preston, in 1992, and material processing facility (i.e., recycling) in East Preston. Both schemes ultimately failed due to local coordinated efforts. Furthermore, a recycling facility ultimately opened in Preston in 1997 and subsequently closed in 2002, but environmental clean-up has not occurred as of 2022. Contaminated well water as well as unreliable and inaccessible transportation have been concerns in East Preston (Waldron 2016, 2018) as well as the lack of a community center in Cherry Brook and Lake Loon.

As Dartmouth’s suburbs expanded rapidly in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the sparsely developed Preston area was identified as the primary target. Loose property rights and land titles, once fully recognized, were now being revoked and transferred. The local school was going to be closed and moved to a nearby predominately White community. Only through a galvanized community effort were these plans repealed.

A specific output of the literature review the advisory committee felt would be meaningful was a simple collection of oral statements of prior recorded verbal and written information found throughout the various data. To be clear, this was not a narrative or an active oral history documentation but simply a synthesis of existing knowledge. The purpose of this was to collect and clarify the community’s perceptions of environmental racism, social justice, and concerns for future urbanization impacts to the community in a clear and accessible format. See

Table 3. Community members’ statements and landscape change perspectives. Sources: (Waldron 2016, 2018; Porter 2017; Simmonds 2014; Sehatzadeh 2008; Whitfield 2008; Este 2007; Saney 1998).

“The fact of it is that we’re not just separated anymore—we are one community, which is the African Nova Scotian community. So this is exciting because we get to do the work together”—Senior Deacon.

“There are so many feelings of shame, anger and mistrust.”—Elder from Cherry Brook.

“There is obviously historic systemic racism involving government and rightfully they haven’t had the trust that they need.”—Resident.

“I fear that we lose our community—land is all the community has ever had. I feel as though the government will ambush their way into taking over our community land and historical culture.”—Elder from East Preston.

“I feel like my community is being attacked—like predators are lying around waiting to gobble up our land.”—Resident.

“We managed to put the brakes on Dartmouth’s expansion for a while … but we can’t sit back on our laurels now. Dartmouth is going to keep looking here, and if they think we aren’t doing anything to develop the land ourselves, they’ll come after us again.”—Resident.

“Soon our community will be like Beechville, all the houses, stores and undeveloped land will be owned by white people who are not from our community and will not appreciate the struggles of Black people.”—Resident.

“We don’t want our littler communities to turn into cities. We don’t want another Colby Village [a nearby suburban subdivision] here. What we want is to keep our identity.”—Resident.

“Street names are rarely used, just local phrases like “down the hill”. We come out in full for church and basketball games. The central firehall is the ‘hangout spot’, albeit informal—if you park or go there, someone will often join you”—Resident.

“Today, our communities have people with the knowledge to help with some of the issues the community faces; we just have to trust each other. We can be far more powerful together than if we stand alone.”—Elder from North Preston.

.

As a literature summary, these communities still feel marginalized and have witnessed the continued expropriation of their land and lack of economic support and development (Abucar 1988; Hudson 2003). The history of environmental racism is perceived as still enduring today and has resulted in more insular community dynamics. This complex history and relationship to the landscape continues to be at risk and vulnerable to further dissolution. The historical disadvantages have left residents bitter with a lack of trust for the government. For the residents of the Preston community, history indicates that environmental racism has an effect on the development of the area. Most residents remember the experience of Africville: The residents felt that no group of people should have to bear the negative development of municipal planning for the sake of others.

3.2. Geospatial Greenspace Survey Results

This section reports the simple statistics and frequencies for the survey dataset.

3.2.1. Descriptive Analysis Results—Respondent Profiles

Table 4. Greenspace respondent profile data. Individual respondents (n = 55).

Gender

Female = 62%, Male = 38%

Age

16 to 21 = 9%

21 to 30 = 29%

31 to 40 = 18%

41 to 50 = 7%

51 to 60 = 13%

61+ = 24%

Child in Household

Yes = 32%, No = 68%

includes the demographic characteristics of the respondents. Comparatively, based on the highest frequency results within the descriptive statistics, female respondents (62%), aged 21 to 30 (highest frequency age group) with no children in the household (68%) were the highest demographic profile to complete this questionnaire.

3.2.2. Descriptive Analysis Results—Greenspace Interaction Profiles

There were a total number of 172 greenspace locations or geo-markers provided by the respondents (n = 86), of which there were 41 unique greenspaces not shared on other responses. Additionally, there were a total number of 256 activities or interactions associated to these greenspace locations (n = 256).

Table 5. Greenspace interaction results. Individual interactions (n = 256) provided by respondents.

% of Respondents	# of Respondents	Greenspace Interaction Activity	Wellbeing Benefit
9%	22	Play sports and games, playground, fish, ride bike or scooter.	Physical
20%	50	Sit and relax, read, be peaceful and spiritual, enjoy nature, sit in car.	Psychological
43%	108	Get together with a group of friends and family, have cookouts.	Social
2%	4	Walk the dog.	Physical
9%	24	Bring the baby outside or kids to play.	Social
6%	16	Socialize with others, hang-out, catch-up or gossip.	Social
3%	10	Walk, run, snowmobile, or hike.	Physical
8%	22	View wildlife, visit coastline, or be in quiet natural areas.	Psychological

summarizes the results tabulated for the various interaction types coded to wellbeing benefits of the geo-markers placed by the respondents. Below that,

Table 6. Greenspace interaction benefits summary.

29% (n = 74) visited for psychological wellbeing benefits. 58% (n = 156) visited for social wellbeing benefits. 13% (n = 34) visited for physical wellbeing benefits.

provides a simple statistical summary of the greenspace interaction wellbeing benefits. Respondents, regardless of demographic profile, visited a local greenspace most often for social benefits (58%), most often to get together with a group of friends and family (43%) followed by a psychological benefit through sitting or relaxing and being peaceful in a greenspace (20%). The lowest greenspace HWB transaction type was physical benefits (3%).

3.2.3. Geospatial Mapping of Human Wellbeing and Greenspace Interaction

The spatial results of the PPGIS survey documented the geo-located data, and when combined with statistical analyses, allowed the production of intensity or ‘heat maps’. This research illustrates its geospatial statistical findings utilizing intensity maps through two distinct approaches: concentration of geo-markers, or points, and distribution of point values. The use of heat maps, often referred to as density maps or cluster heat maps, provides a graphic illustration of the geographic variables and values summarized from this research’s analysis and is a statistical analysis technique often utilized in cartography. Simply, these heat maps help visualize the spatial distribution and frequencies of the various greenspace geo-markers and interaction patterns for wellbeing benefits within the Preston community. See Figure 6.

An intensity map of the Preston community core area showing locations of greenspaces residents visited. Darker red areas indicate higher frequency of visits.

Lastly, upon seeing the geospatial survey results, the community advisory board was inspired to gather and document images supporting their cultural greenspace use and interaction. These are shown below in Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10.

4. Discussion

4.1. The Preston Community and Greenspaces

Results show that the Preston community’s residents who responded to this survey (n = 55) were, most often, female (62%), aged between 21 to 30 (29%), and 32% of households did include a child or children under the age of 16 in the household. Greenspaces are an important part of the Preston community residents’ everyday life. Whether parks or natural areas, playgrounds, forests, parking lots, church areas, shorelines or paths, these communities use greenspaces for many benefits. The literature has suggested that physical contact with greenspace influences human wellbeing by providing psychological restoration, physical interaction, and social opportunities, among many others. This research supports such findings by showing that interaction with greenspace supports multiple aspects of wellbeing. Results indicate residents predominately visited local greenspaces for social and psychological benefits. Overall, 58% of participants in these communities visited local greenspaces to socially interact with neighbors and friends, to cookout, or to bring children outside, and 29% visited greenspaces as a way to relax and enjoy nature.

The geo-questionnaire’s (GQ) dropped markers provided specific spatial locations of greenspaces they visit and interact with, thus allowing for a post hoc analysis of those spaces. Overall, the greenspaces interacted with were most often associated with a local facility such as a church or community center but also included unpaved, unmaintained open spaces along the major roads. These greenspaces provided most of the social wellbeing benefits to participants. The forested greenspaces selected were predominately noted for psychological wellbeing benefits. This unique place-based analysis allowed for clear relationships between greenspace locations and specific benefits provided to users. This is important because it provided a map of the many open spaces and ‘un-titled’ greenspaces in the community which do not show up on any physical maps, drawings, or planning documents. These greenspaces serve to identify local, undocumented, socio-cultural spaces which is important to the community and its relationship to the landscape. The greenspace distribution and locations promote racial equity within the region and spatially document community-valued landscapes which can serve to reduce vulnerability to landscape change.

The GQ was limited in the type of information collected. It is unclear what percentage of the Preston African-Canadian community participated in the survey. More in-depth data about the participants as well as greenspace qualities and interaction could be applied in future studies. For example, the GQ only allowed one selection of interaction type per greenspace marker per respondent, thereby limiting the synergistic effect of a greenspace and their ability to provide multiple benefits. Furthermore, the role of the GQ is unclear at this stage of the Municipal planning process. Though the identification and interaction relationships were a key output, it is unclear at this stage if this information can be applied to anticipate and avoid conflict, though that was the goal. The use and integration of PPGIS technology is nascent, and continued applications, suitability, and outcome evaluation should be explored including Municipal-level studies. Other limitations exist within this study. The knowledge synthesized is considered a simplified summary, but there may be other formats required for Municipal-level integration. This CPBR framework did not address the needs of the Province or Municipality in regards to land use planning, though that is a next step in the larger project goal and ongoing communication.

4.2. Preston Community Empowerment

CBPR provides several useful tools and strategies for linking research to action. It was mentioned by a member of the advisory board that “The communities need to feel empowered and secure”. Knowledge leads to opportunities from within, particularly in light of the historical racism, inequality, and injustice in this community. These findings provide important insight on the current condition of environmental risk perceptions and landscape-based vulnerability. Overall, there is a distinct concern that this community will change. The continuous growth in the number and size of urban areas will continue in the Halifax Metropolitan Region and Dartmouth. Preston’s communities will place more pressure on their existing and nearby open spaces and greenspaces. This study provides a human–nature interaction context in which future land use planning, management, and policy decisions can be aligned, and communication with stakeholders can be more equitable.

This study links results to positive and meaningful action opportunities for the communities of Preston. It is important that the stream of knowledge and research evidence continues to build and be documented which can be used in future community-specific planning considerations. An important next step is for the community to actively integrate within the government structures. A systematic review of this information with a Municipal partner is recommended as a next step. An in-depth consultation among various Municipal and Provincial sectors before any decisions are put forth was also recommended. In Canada, a 2004 national survey concluded community involvement presented an opportunity for improved greenspace protection (Lindsay 2004). The ongoing disputes over land-ownership and titles led to this community-led initiative for conservation and self-management of land in the middle of 2021. This study presents information to continue efforts to establish the community land trust; the Province and Municipality have yet to contribute money towards this goal though there is a Special Purposes Fund.

There have been many pro-active community developments in the last five years from which this study will contribute towards. The community recently developed BLxCKHOUSE, a relaxed, drop-in safe space for youth and teens where residents can do homework, crafts, or just hang-out. It is community trusted space, serving as headquarters for community initiatives such as gardening, block parties, book clubs, and protests. Additionally, a small group called North Preston’s Future began in 2017 with the goals as stated by founder Miranda Cain: “We want our kids to have a better future. We wanna empower each other. And we wanna be proud to be where we’re from”. The existing North Preston Community Centre is an important asset to the Black community, serving primarily physical activities but also social events and a senior room.

North America and other regions across the world contain other segregated communities whose approaches to community participation and knowledge development may be facilitated by this research. This study’s approach towards community engagement enabled residents to articulate and give meaning to their cultural history and experiences with landscape change, urbanization, and local greenspaces, thereby informing future land use, planning, and policy actions from within this community.

The pressures for change to these small community landscapes will continue, both internally and externally. This participatory methodology provide insight to planners and decision-makers in engaging cultures, reducing stakeholder conflict, increasing community cohesion, and informing sustainable planning. This study illustrates pathways to effectively link research to action at a community level, and to determine CBPR areas and strategies for stakeholder IKT. This study supports trends towards evidence-based planning which inform more just decisions in urbanizing regions, and presents frameworks for improving environmental equality to build community capacity. Future directions in CBPR frameworks should focus on developing methods for evaluating the impact of actions. Additionally, effective IKT as an output of CBPR improves existing competency within planning, management, and policy frameworks, ultimately leading to a governmental culture that supports such community-based research evidence.

5. Conclusions

Socio-spatial inequality often arises through decision-making and policy within political structures, particularly in rural areas and minority communities (McKittrick 2011). This study’s geo-spatial mapping identifies qualitative and quantitative information to locate cultural greenspaces in order to further protect important infrastructure in the face of landscape change and urban development.

These African-Canadian communities have evolved a cultural landscape identity due to the complex racial geography of the Preston area and its people. This community has and continues to confront racism and environmental challenges, both spatially and culturally. Culturally, marginalization and discrimination are still present. Spatially, the continued urbanization of Dartmouth’s predominately White communities create constant pressures for landscape change and community fragmentation. Yet, their unique resilience and strong cultural identify has maintained a firm commitment to being a vibrant, collective community through internal empowerment.