Community gardens are defined as “everything from individual plot cultivation to collective gardening in public spaces, schools and prisons” (Pudup 2008). However, Linn identifies community gardens “as a common space that brings people together and inspires shared action” (2007). The notion of a community garden dates back to the nineteenth century whereas the contemporary idea of a community garden initiated from North America’s trend of potato patches (Firth et al., 2011: 556). Community gardens had a resurrection in demand during the World Wars in which they became crucial in food supplies. In this essay I will be evaluating community gardens and their contribution to ‘community’ and its practices and constructions. The term ‘community’ is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “the people living in one particular area or people who are considered as a unit because of their common interests, social group, or nationality” (Cambridge, n.p.). Moreover, as Boyes-Watson said, “Community is no longer defined by place but by the perception of personal connectedness” (2005: 362). The essay will discuss the question thematically through the key ideas of social, economic and environmental impacts. In essence, it will contend that, community gardens have the ability to create social networks and enhance inclusivity within a community, aid urban regeneration and prosperity and assist sustainability and environmental issues. However, it will also evaluate the drawbacks and actualities regarding the proposed ‘advantages’.
Community gardens contribute socially to the constructions and practices of community. Social contributions are segregated into two concepts, social capital and social inclusion. Social capital is defined by Putnam as “features of social organisations, such as networks, norms, and trust, that facilitate actions of cooperation for mutual benefit” (1995: pg. 7), however, Christensen refers to it as “connections between like-minded people, homogenous groups and strong ties” and, therefore, is key in the construction and practice of a community (2017: 303). Community gardens generate social capital by providing a space in which like-minded people can gather, interact and do something with communal external benefits. It is discussed that social capital creates a “third space”, a bridged social capital, between home and work, in which “altruistic activity” takes place (Firth et al., 2011: 558). Soreen notes that social capital can be a private good, used by “members to achieve gains” or a public good, a notion explored by Bourdieu, which is a shared benefit to the community (2017: 105), thus, community gardens can both assist inhabitants privately or collectively and, therefore, hugely contribute to the practices of community. Community gardens also give local members “an opportunity for different kinds of people to interact by creating a hierarchy stripped of socioeconomic status…” (Flachs, 2010: 5) and, therefore, aid the constructions of community. This is evident in the example of ‘Dig In’, a Melbourne community garden, in which questions were placed to the gardeners and they responded about the benefits of community gardens to their community. It was said that, “They felt part of a strong group and gained support and advice from others” and one said, “you miss people if they don’t come”. Members were happy and wanted to help others’ allotments by watering and weeding while they were absent indicating the cooperation between members (Kingsley and Townsend, 2006: 532). Additionally, a focus group in St Louis explored the relationships built between members and stated they were “a real connecting thing” and that community gardens “helped transform formal relationships…into genuine friendships” (Christensen, 2017: 115). These comments are key in the evaluation of community gardens being a contributing factor to the constructions and practices of community due to their ability to make the community an effective ‘unit’.
Another element of the social contribution of community gardens to constructions and practices of ‘community’ is social inclusion. This facet is important because in order for a community to function it must have members who are harmoniously and personally connected. Community gardens are “places where different ethnic groups can interact”, “a space to help different groups overcome potential barriers between them” and, therefore, a place where the construction and practice of the community is fair and inclusive. (Wakefield et al., 2007: 98). This idea is explored by Agustina and Beilin, who in a Melbourne Based study explored the contribution of community gardens and the role that they play in providing a “space to preserve migrants’ cultural identity”, discussing that having a multicultural environment could be seen “as an impetus for interaction” (2011: 440, 445). This idea is furthered in their exploration of pride in their gardens and its relation to the desire to belong in a new community. Community gardens are often created to engage newcomers in community activities and successfully give them the ability and encouragement to adapt. The effective workings of a community, therefore, depend on this engagement and adaptation. However, this was not always the case, there are multiple examples in which exclusion and segregation has occurred in community gardens. In the ‘Dig in’ community garden, despite the diverse population of Melbourne, the gardeners were primarily Anglo-Saxon, middle-class, female and in their 50s. They apparently “share [the] same green values” and were the dominating core members while ethic minorities were the peripheral members. Culturally there was apparently “no differences” (Kingsley & Townsend, 2006: 530). Flachs furthered this stating that frequent tensions were “class and racially motivated” causing marginalisation of those separate to the “white movement” (2010: 3). Therefore, despite the assumption that gardens would provide a neutral and common ground to members enabling them to build relationships, vital in the health of a diverse community, there were still tensions and exclusions making community gardens a potentially worsening contribution, in some cases, to the construction and practice of a community.
A key component to the construction and practice of community is the contribution of three crucial economic factors: rehabilitation, funding and prosperity. Low income neighbourhoods and areas with high crime rates are common pockets of poverty with a lack of alternative and poor community involvement. Therefore, community gardens such as that of ‘The Garden Project’ in San Francisco in which ex-prisoners plant trees, are prominent establishments in the restoration of deprived communities. This particular community garden has a “no-return to jail within 3 years” success rate of 75% with pay twice that of the minimum wage thus giving its members the economic advancement necessary in order to improve their standard of living (Ferris et al., 2001: 463). High standards of living are a crucial factor in the practice of not just a healthy community, but also a healthy society. Another example of a rehabilitating community garden is one in Oakland, California, which is just outside of the “biggest gun shop in California”. It targets young people who are “exposed to the drugs and crime economy” and aims to give them an alternative way of living (Ferris et al., 2001: 462) thus aiding the practice of community in supporting individuals to re-identify their place in the ‘unit’. Furthermore, the funding behind community gardens is a vital factor for their success. For example, a community garden, located in Stapleford, a former industrial town just outside Nottingham City Centre, was from the Primary Care Trust, PCT. Funding such as this is common in deprived areas because it is easier to access. PCT enabled the garden to have access to resources and funding from local authorities thus permitting it to improve and expand its infrastructure. However, it has become evident from interviews that this garden has now become dependent on this input and thus is increasingly inhibiting its ability to develop further (Firth et al., 2011 :564). The dependency created is a concern because it hinders the ability of the community to have stability in its practice. Finally, community gardens can also catalyse prosperity in a community. Patel explores this notion, the economic benefit of community gardens to the individuals inside the community, stating that in a 1991 survey of Newark gardens the $25 investment produced an average $504 worth of vegetable produce (1991: n.p.). Moreover, it has been discovered that gardeners not only use their produce for their own food, many also sell it and create their own “small economies” (McMillian, 2002: n.p.). In both theses instances members of community gardens are included in the cycle of prosperity enabling them to stimulate economic growth in the community as well as advance their own individual living standards thus proving to be both a private and a public good and contribute immensely to the practice and construction of community.
Finally, a constituent of community gardens and their contribution to the constructions and practices of community is the environment and sustainability. In Holland’s discussion of the WCED 1987 report on ‘Our Common Future’ it is stressed that urban food growing would provide sustainable and reliable food sources for the urban poor as well as supply employment and, therefore, income also (2004: 291). According to Holland, the most powerful force for sustainable development was the Earth Summit of 1992 in which its two policies advocated local sustainability being of utmost importance to a community (2004:187). Policies such as these and the emergence of international concern regarding the environment have given community gardens a “fresh impetus’ with an increased drive for sustainability cities and urban regeneration (Ferris et al., 2001: 562). Community gardens provide an open green space in often deprived urban areas creating the idea of local sustainability. An example of urban regeneration is that of the flatlands surrounding the San Francisco bay which used to be rustbelt areas formally occupied by naval bases, manufacturing and petrochemical refineries thus experiencing frequent toxic chemical dumping at the expense of the environment. Many of these areas have now been radically reconstructed into community gardens in order to rejuvenate the community and create a sustainable space that has communal benefits of better social and ecological health (Ferris et al., 2001: 566). Another example of sustainable development of areas into community gardens for the benefit of the community members are the leisure gardens also in San Francisco. These were neglected urban districts absorbed in crime which were developed into green space with vegetable growing, therefore, beneficially altering the construction of the community due to giving it the. Ultimately, the emerging policies relating sustainability have increased awareness and propelled the need for green spaces and urban regeneration in order for the construction of communities to be absolute.
According to Flachs, there is a “food desert where nutritious is too expensive” (2010: 3). Due to the increasing importance of global sustainability and the pressure created with its emergence it has become evident that action must be taken on a community level. Community gardens create a green space in which food can be grown for the benefit of its members internally as well as externally to their community, both a private and a public good. Moreover, community gardens have been a productive way to utilise previously deprived areas which are ridden with crime and change communities to be forward thinking and proactive. The themes that have been evaluated throughout this essay make it clear that community gardens contribute hugely to the constructions and practices of the community itself. Socially, through the exploration of social capital and social inclusion it was discovered that community gardens created close bonds with members and brought together people in “a non-contentious, non-argumentative, social setting” (Christensen, 2017: 116). Furthermore, despite the marginalisation and exclusion that were experienced by some in community gardens, there were may cases for community gardens being the catalyst for inclusion and acceptance, a “third space” in the community (Firth et al., 2011: 558). Economically, through the analysis of rehabilitation, funding and prosperity, it was apparent that community gardens were the impetus for increased standards of living in the community, thus, aiding both the construction and practice of it. Finally, environmentally, community gardens created a green local space that altered the environment of the area by converting destitute land to an area of growth and nourishment. According to Holland, we need to “think globally, act locally” and, therefore, with this reason community gardens are a way to act within the community to ensure its construction and practice is efficient, effective and inclusive (2004: 287).