The Community gardens’ Call for
Waiting Lists
A case study on the underlying reasons for the appearance of waiting lists
in Nijmegen
Bachelor Thesis Geography, Planning and Environment (GPE)
Nijmegen School of Management
Radboud University Nijmegen
August 2020
The Community gardens’ Call for
Waiting Lists
A case study on the underlying reasons for the appearance of waiting lists
in Nijmegen
Bachelor thesis Geography, Planning and Environment (GPE) Nijmegen School of Management
Radboud University Nijmegen August 2020
Laura Howald S1005832
Cesar Merlin Escorza Word count:
iii
Table of content
Preface ... v Summary ... vi 1. Introduction ... 8 1.1 Project context ... 8 1.2 Relevance ... 11 1.2.1 Scientific relevance ... 11 1.2.2 Social relevance... 12 1.4 Problem analysis ... 14 1.5 Research objective ... 14 1.6 Research questions ... 15 2. Research framework ... 16 2.1 Research perspective ... 162.2 Food Justice and this research ... 18
2.3 Conceptual model ... 18
3. Methodology ... 19
3.1 Research strategy ... 19
3.1.1 Case study ... 19
3.1.2 Interviews and observations ... 20
3.1.3 Adaptive Approach ... 21
3.2 Research model ... 21
3.3 Data analysis ... 22
4. Results ... 23
4.1 Participation and the access to food justice... 23
4.1.1 Soil fertility and cultivation methods... 24
4.1.2 Autonomy ... 25
4.1.3 Healthy food ... 26
4.2 The municipalities relation to the gardens ... 26
4.2.1 Rental agreement ... 27
4.2.2 Rules and restrictions ... 28
4.3 How community gardens are coping with their waiting lists ... 29
iv
4.3.2 Division of gardens and their policy ... 30
4.4 The reasons for the appearance of waiting lists ... 30
4.4.1 Size and number of gardens ... 32
4.4.2 Dividing gardens ... 34
4.4.3 Flow of people ... 35
4.4.4 Policy of community gardens ... 36
4.4.5 Lack of space and the general interest ... 37
5. Conclusion and Recommendations ... 39
5.1 Conclusion ... 39
5.2 Adjustments on the conceptual model ... 43
5.3 Recommendations ... 43
6. Reflection ... 44
7. References ... 46
8. Appendix ... 51
8.1 Interview guide ... 51
8.2 Overview of interviewed persons ... 53
8.3 Observation scheme ‘De Pagode’ ... 53
8.4 Observation scheme ‘De Rozentuin’ ... 54
v
Preface
When I started to work on my bachelor thesis in this year January, I have never expected in which direction my way was leading. As this path opens new possibilities another live-changing event was knocking on the door. And I decided to let it in. This live-live-changing event is called becoming a mother. While I made the decision to welcome this event with an open and warm heart, I was still facing the privilege to write a bachelor thesis. I remember that a teacher once said to me that I will be good a secondary modern school student, but a bad grammar school student. I have reached out for more. And this time I did the same. I put a lot of effort in writing this bachelor thesis but at some days I felt too close to give up. But without the help of my thesis supervisor, the study advisor, a study counsellor, a study trainer, the Radboud Writing Lab, my partner, and my family, I would
not be here writing this preface.
Special thanks go out to everybody who supported me in this advantageous time. Thank you for your time, support, and advice. Thank you for all your efforts.
I hope you enjoy reading this bachelor thesis about the community gardens in Nijmegen and the underlying problems for the appearance of waiting lists.
Laura Howald
vi
Summary
This thesis called The Community Gardens’ Call for Waiting Lists is an initial attempt to investigate the underlying reasons for the appearance of waiting lists. Therefore, community gardens within the municipality’s borders of the city of Nijmegen are selected to collect information on the underlying reasons. By doing so, the concept of food justice is used to examine a person’s participation in a community garden based on the access to food justice offered by such a participation. Also, the municipality’s influence on the community gardens understudy is examined within the ranges of this research. The purpose of this research is to contribute the solution to the practical problem of waiting lists leading to a decrease in the accessibility to community gardens. After investigating the underlying reasons, recommendations complete this research. Such recommendations are made to the board of each community garden on how to potentially solve the appearance of waiting lists as well as on topics concerning further research. This research’s purpose is translated into the following main research question:
What are the underlying reasons for the appearance of waiting lists in the process of getting access to community gardens in Nijmegen?
Community gardens are non-commercial gardens that are collectively managed to produce crops, vegetables, fruit, and flowers for self-supply but as there is a difference between those gardens in the city of Nijmegen a specification has to be assigned to this research (Knapp et al., 2016). In this research a community garden is an allotment garden in which several small land parcels of different surfaces are cultivated by individuals. Those individuals or families to which each a parcel is assigned pay money to the community garden association they are a member of to rent the parcel. Thus, the community gardens understudy consist of individually cultivated parcels (Holmer et al., 2003). Community gardens are used by and are beneficial for individuals of any age, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status and tend to have multiple benefits such as community building, health benefits, food security, sustainability and food access (Draper & Freedman, 2010). Research has shown that community gardens can contribute greatly to the accessibility and ability to produce food, referred to as food access and food sovereignty (Shisanya & Hendriks, 2011).
Unfortunately, the access to a community garden is increasingly restricted by factors such as waiting lists. Also, in the Netherlands the demand for community garden parcels is continuously increasing and manifest itself in long waiting lists with a wating time of up to twenty years. So, there could be a chance that the accessibility to community
vii
gardens in the city of Nijmegen is decreasing as well (Van Eck, 2019; RN7, 2016; De Brug Nijmegen, 2020; Eetbaar Nijmegen, 2020).
To research the community gardens in Nijmegen a choice is made for a qualitative research design and a case study concept. To gain insights in the underlying reasons for the appearance of waiting lists interviews are held in six of seven community gardens established within the municipality’s borders of Nijmegen. The information used to answer the research questions are derived from the analysis of the semi-structured interviews done by using a coding technique.
Firstly, the interviews have revealed that a person’s participation in a community garden leads to more access to food justice compared to a person who is not participating in a community garden. If a person participates in a community garden the access to food justice is determined by the access to healthy food, increased food security, and food sovereignty. The access to fertile land, landownership and autonomy is proofed by this research to be not determinable for the access to food justice.
Secondly, this research has shown that the municipality exerts influence on the community gardens by managing rental agreements and by defining rules and restrictions in such agreements. Besides, the municipality has currently no influence on the waiting lists at all nor on the length of a waiting list.
Thirdly, participants have stated during the interviews that the different community garden associations have already developed approaches to cope with their waiting lists. Such approaches are i.e. the division of garden parcels, the elaboration of the community garden’s policy and the development of a new form of waiting list.
Lastly, it is safe to conclude that there are four underlying reasons which play a role in the community gardens understudy. Such underlying reasons are detected to be the total number of garden parcels a community garden association has, the degree of elaborateness of a policy, the flow of people, and the two external factors such as interest and lack of space.
In the end, recommendations are made to the board of each community garden regarding an improvement of the flow of people by elaborating on the organization of the community garden and its policy. Also, community gardens are invited to think about creative measurements as for example the further elaboration of the idea on dynamic waiting lists. Besides, recommendations are made to further research as well. Another research project could start with the investigation of the policy of the municipality to gain insights into the municipality’s stance on community gardens. Next to that, further research can possibly contribute to a solid implementation of community gardens in future development projects.
8
1. Introduction
1.1 Project context
Recently, the phenomena called climate change and its possible consequences are receiving more and more attention, not only from scientists and policy makers but also from the public. Climate change is defined as ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is, in addition to natural climate variability, observed over comparable time periods’ (Miraglia et al., 2009, p.1).
Yet, it is not completely clear what the impacts of climate change will exactly be on a global nor local scale. Research has shown that climate change could possibly impact the global as well as local economy, agriculture, planning and usage of space we live in (Miraglia et al., 2009; Deke et al., 2001; Carter et al., 2015). From the base period of 1951 till 1980, research has also shown an increase in likelihood of extreme hot weather events. In 1980, those extreme hot weather events cover around ten percent of the earth’s surface instead of one percent as observed during the base period. These changes are connected to climate change (Hansen et al., 2012).
As cities are hotspots of high population density, waste production and consumption of energy, they may thus be more vulnerable to climate change than rural areas. Extreme droughts, one the one hand, frequent inland flooding as well as sea level rising, on the other hand, can be a great risk for inhabitants, property, the infrastructure and ecosystems as a whole (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2003; Rosenzweig et al., 2011). Rural areas provide almost all the space for agricultural activities through which the world population is fed. The international as well as the European agricultural productivity may also be affected by climate change. Particularly, climate adaption can lead to a change in cultivation strategies, crop species and the amount a harvest yield. Adaption methods are necessary to deal with the temperature changes and precipitation patterns (Olesen & Bindi, 2002; Adams et al., 1998). Though adaption can bring advantages, the disadvantages are of greater threat if higher temperatures are appearing more frequently, potentially leading to an increase of water shortages. The alternation of droughts and flooding events could then lead to a decrease in harvest yields thus an increase in economic losses. Those losses can be regulated by adaption methods but without, decreasing yields can lead to further intensification of agrarian activities on limited agricultural land. Such intensification can lead in the long term to depletion of rural agrarian grounds.
9
moderate zones leading to a diversification of the yields in Western Europe (Olesen & Bindi, 2002; Adams et al. 1998).
After the second world war, food production in The Netherlands was insufficient, as stated by Ellings and Hassink (2006). In their paper ‘Farming for Health in The Netherlands'. They summarize a change in agricultural policy implementing a production mode that would accomplish an increase of production results, efficiency, and specialization by further intensification. However, this way of production forms a public and political issue nowadays because people see no future in intensification but instead in a sustainable farming system which does not exploit the earth as intensification techniques via the overuse of one piece of land (Ellings & Hassink, 2006). Food security may be at risk due to the combination of intensification, pollution, and climate change. Those conditions may lead to a biodiversity loss worldwide at such an extent that many ecosystem services are becoming more and more exhausted. Such services are of great importance to society’s well-being and thus becoming increasingly exhausted poses a threat to food security. As scholar literature has a broad range of definitions of food security, this research focuses on only one specific meaning of food security. Food security is defined as the possibility to fulfil the daily food requirements and having a future in which the production of and the access to food can be sustained (Bommarco et al., 2013; Shisanya & Hendriks, 2011).
Furthermore, the ongoing capital accumulation around cities and the development of an urban-rural dichotomy creates a disequilibrium between agglomerations and their surrounding peripheries. This is followed by an increasing pressure on the natural environment (Tornaghi, 2013). As agricultural food production is centred mostly in rural areas suffering from intensification, there is a need for the emergence of urban agriculture. However, the insufficient allocation of urban agriculture and the marginalized industrialization of food production in the periphery creates a situation in which urban dwellers are no longer able to feed themselves by self-grown food. Urban dwellers thus lose track of the production chains, as ready-to-eat products are offered in the supermarket racks (Tornaghi, 2013). This means that urban dwellers have no insight into the way in which the offered food is produced since they are not involved in the production of it. Put another way, expressed in terms of Marxist theory, they are facing alienation (Entfremdung) from food production (Sayers, 2011).
In an attempt to fulfil the need of access to healthy and self-grown food for urban dwellers, urban agricultural practices have begun to emerge. This can be a potential answer for the ever-growing cities and may lead to a different path of development in hopes of finding answers to the social, economic, and ecological challenges we are facing within the
10
framework of climate change (Lohrberg, 2016; Heynen et al. 2012). Urban agriculture takes place in almost every city on earth, within different regions and areas and in a variety of different ways; in and on buildings as open rooftop farming and zero-acreage farming, on balconies, in houses and greenhouses, personal gardens, allotment gardens, educational gardens, therapeutic gardens, squatter gardens, as urban farming and in community gardens (Vejre et al. 2016; Thomaier et al., 2015).
Past research has shown that community gardens ‘‘[…] are used by, and beneficial for, individuals of any age, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, as well as the disabled and nondisabled alike’’ (Draper & Freedman, 2010). Such benefits can range for example from community building, to health benefits, from food security and access to sustainability.
Community gardens have a meeting-function and can increase the social cohesion between fellow gardeners and the surrounding neighbourhood. Through collective food production and interest sharing, individuals care for each other and can share common knowledge and activities. Thus, gardens are a space to connect with other people independently from the cultural background establishing the feeling of being part of a community (Armstrong, 2000; Teig et al., 2009). In addition, dozens of health benefits are told to be increased by community gardens such as the improvement of access to nutritional food. This improved food access to nutritious, fresh fruits and vegetables help to sustain a healthy life by dietary changing and replenishing. Thus, in some cases, diseases may be prevented by the enrichment of the diet with vegetables and fruits (Wakefield et al., 2007). Furthermore, gardening may also help keep people mentally and physically active by offering a great range of exercises and activities. Activities are done by hand or with a tool and improve in this way the feeling of wellbeing and so the mental health. In turn, a great mental health, may have a great impact on increasing someone’s physical health (Wakefield et al., 2007; Teig et al., 2009). As sustainability has become of common interest for different disciplines, people are increasingly aware of its impact too. Urban dwellers and gardeners have decided to commit themselves to sustainable crop growing practices such as those in community gardens. Those urban dwellers tend to arrange themselves to sustain their food security (Kruit et al.,2012; Tornaghi, 2013; Jansen van Vuuren, 2016).
In this research community gardens are defined after Knapp et al. (2016) as non-commercial gardens that are collectively managed to produce crops, vegetables, fruit, and flowers for self-supply. Because there are differences between those gardens in the city of Nijmegen a specification is necessary. In this research a community garden is an allotment garden which is located at one place within the city. Within such an allotment
11
garden several small land parcels of different surfaces can be found. The individuals or families to which each one parcel is assigned pay money to the community garden association they are a member of to rent such a parcel. So, those allotment gardens, further referred to as community gardens, consist of individually cultivated parcels (Holmer et al., 2003).
Food insecurity is referred to as not being able to meet the daily food requirements and the fear of a future in which the ability to produce and access food slowly buries. Though research has pointed out that community gardens are not completely able to provide food security, they can contribute greatly to the accessibility and ability to produce food. (Shisanya & Hendriks, 2011). Guitart, Pickering and Byrne (2012) state that food insecurity is an issue of rapid urbanisation and consequently decrease the amount of available agricultural land. Food security can only be ensured if community gardens are not facing the fear of destruction for urban development. As food access and food security are deeply interrelated, it is important to point out, that urban dwellers see urban agricultural practices as a method of gaining access to healthy food. Not only the access plays an role but also the aim for giving access to every interested member of our society regardless of race, class, gender, ethnicity, citizenship, ability, religion, or community (Heynen et al., 2012; Horst et al. 2017; Meenar & Hoover, 2012). To this sense of equity is referred to in scholar literature as food justice and will be pointed out later in this thesis.
1.2 Relevance
1.2.1 Scientific relevance
In this day and age, we are facing challenges to build up a world in which we can sustain a healthy and secure life in the nearby future. To do so, scientists all over the world are searching for innovations and techniques to reduce CO2 emissions and improve the climate conditions.
Urban agriculture with its potential to solve food-related issues such as greenhouse gasses emitted by the transportation of food all around the world, offers an alternative to the high-tech agricultural sector. Not only the emissions can be reduced, but also the pressure on professional farmers who increasingly feel forced to adapt to large scale high-tech solutions in the pursuit of sustainability (Van der Schans, 2010). As it was partly discussed before, intensification is facilitated on marginalized agricultural land by the emergence and use of high-tech solutions (Elings & Hassink, 2006).
But how long can we keep coping with those methods and what are the possible solutions for this issue? Urban agriculture may be a suitable solution for urban dwellers to provide themselves with vegetables, fruits, and herbs increasing food access and food security (Horst et al, 2017).
12
In order to cope with the social demands for an agricultural system which is economically, ecologically and socially sustainable, the relationship between the rural and the urban areas needs to be changed into more sustainable patterns (Elings & Hassink, 2006). As urban agriculture can help to restore those patterns, we should know that urban agriculture in the Netherlands has already been integrated in urban spaces for decades. But its integration in urban planning practices and land use policies has not yet been accomplished because governmental instances may not have the know-how to do so. So, the lack of knowledge constrains the integration of urban agricultural practices, as those in community gardens, into the compact cities and restrictive building policies of The Netherlands (Mubvami & Mushamba, 2013; Van der Valk, 2002). On the one hand, this means that by studying the underlying problems occurring within urban agricultural practices one may contribute to a wider development of knowledge in such matter. Having the specific knowledge may stimulate the embedment of community gardens in spatial projects on development areas. On the other hand, the researcher’s attention can be centred on different aspects of food justice in society, which is researched especially in human geography. When focusing on food justice, we can aim to create a space in which urban agricultural practices can be offered to increase equality between urban dwellers. Researchers in the food justice field ‘‘[...] acknowledge that place-based projects are important because they offer people localized opportunities to develop alternatives to the industrial, corporate food system and to flex muscles in food democracy’’ (Horst et al., 2017, p. 279).
It is in the scientific interest to contribute to the further development of community gardens, to guarantee food justice and to develop recommendations for policy makers to facilitate the sustainable development of cities. The urban dwellers in Nijmegen and the accessibility to community gardens could benefit from further research on community gardens and their concrete planning policies. The lack of critical research on community gardens in the present, as well as concrete planning policies and documents on community gardens in the Netherlands, could also be filled up by research. However, the highest aim would be to reduce the length of waiting lists or ultimately cease to have a waiting list at all.
1.2.2 Social relevance
Through the development of an urban-rural dichotomy and further marginalization of food production services to the periphery, urban dwellers are in search of a space to fulfil their needs for local food growth. This space should offer a possibility to have a choice on the mode of agriculture, both referred to as food access and sovereignty (Tornaghi, 2013; Heynen et al., 2012).
13
These spaces, created by the practice of urban agriculture, are deeply desired by an increasing number of people in many different urban areas worldwide since the 1990s (Castillo, 2003). This increase in popular interest might have arisen from the overall view of community gardens as beneficial to social, political and communitarian developmental goals. In addition, it gives urban dwellers the feeling that they can do something about their concerns them regarding for example, greenhouse gas emissions and intransparent industrialized food production chains (Classens, 2014; Van der Schans, 2010). The rising interest in such gardens leads to externalities such as long waiting lists paired with long waiting times before the access to a parcel is finally given. Just how long the wait time can be however remaining unclear because in accordance with data privacy, the release of information is not allowed (De Brug Nijmegen, 2020; Eetbaar Nijmegen, n.d.)
Unfortunately, not everybody is able to gain access to community gardens for multiple reasons. Firstly, urban dwellers can struggle with access to community gardens because there is no suitable land available. This situation is partly created through policy restrictions, a high demand for land, or land privatization for commercial or private use. Secondly, access can be a struggle because the available land is not suitable or not of sufficient quality regarding for example the soil composition. Thirdly, certain population groups, i.e. minorities, could be denied from community gardens and might be subjects of food injustice by potentially depriving them of food access in comparison to the privileged population. Lastly, it could be the case that there is just no space available anymore in the city and in community gardens because all the space is already used (Mougeot, 2000; Horst et al., 2017; Tornaghi, 2013).
In the Netherlands, inaccessibility manifests in long waiting lists with a waiting time of up to twenty years as stated in the news channel NOS proving the unsustainability of the ever-growing demand for parcels in community gardens (Van Eck, 2019). Such a condition can be seen not only in bigger Dutch cities such as Amsterdam or the agglomeration Randstad, but also within medium-sized cities such as Nijmegen as the public interest in community gardens rises.
In concern of this research, a waiting list is defined as a list which consists of more than two names. Thus, the number of names on the list is important when it comes to the length of a waiting list.
As the local news channel RN7 and different community garden webpages exhibit, community gardens enjoy great popularity which is unfortunately expressed in long waiting lists. Consequently, gardens become continuously inaccessible because waiting lists need to be handled to regulate the enrolments in community gardens if there is no space available anymore (RN7, 2016; De Brug Nijmegen, 2020; Eetbaar Nijmegen, 2020). Accessibility refers in the means of this research to a community garden in which
14
accessibility is assessed through the amount of people who are on a waiting list, the amount of time they have already waited and the amount of membership fees member need to pay. I suggest that it is in social interest to search for the underlying problems of the appearance of waiting lists, in order to create better accessible community gardens and offer to urban dwellers the opportunity to fulfil their needs for food access and food sovereignty.
1.4 Problem analysis
In this research, the problem under investigation is the appearance of waiting lists in the community gardens lying within the municipality’s borders. There is a discrepancy between the reality and the desired vision of reality. In this case, the reality shows us that there are waiting lists and that people must wait before the access into a community garden is given. After searching in multiple internet sources, it is still not clear how long those waiting lists really are. Not even one internet source states the explicit length of a waiting list, which could be an outcome of the data privacy policy. But what we know is that some gardens have longer waiting lists than others, and even some gardens have no
lists at all.
The analysis of the underlying problems of community garden waitlists could be a chance to bring the urban dwellers, the board of the community gardens, researchers, and the municipality closer to the desired vision of reality- better accessible community gardens with shorter or no waiting lists at all. This situation could be advanced by researching this issue and by an examination of the factors which influence the appearance of waiting lists. However, it is not clear, where the responsibility for this problem lies. Are the community gardens themselves causing this problem by having a less strict coordinated policy? Or is the municipality responsible for the waiting lists by creating less space for (new) community gardens or by having no implementation of community gardens in their policy at all? This research attempts to contribute an answer to these questions by analysing the problem and the current situation in the community gardens of Nijmegen. In addition, this research aims to give insights in how long those waiting lists really are and their underlying problems. Following, the next paragraph will point out how those aims are transferred to the means of this research.
1.5 Research objective
The aim of this research is to contribute the solution to the practical problem of waiting lists leading to an improvement of the accessibility to community gardens. This objective is achieved by making an analysis of the underlying reasons for the appearance of waiting lists. Therefore, insights are gained in how long those waiting lists are and what
15
specifically causing such waitlists within the community gardens understudy. The concept of food justice will help with the assessment of the current situation within the community gardens by showing to what extent community gardens are able offer food justice to urban dwellers. It is in my interest to provide recommendations on how to potentially solve the problem of waiting lists to the board of the different community gardens understudy.
1.6 Research questions
To analyse the current situation, the main research question came about by consideration of the method of corroborative types of knowledge by Verschuren and Doorewaard (2010, pp.100-106). Determined by the concept of practical problem analysis, the research questions have a descriptive form to analyse the underlying practical problems of the appearance of waiting lists. The main research question is:
What are the underlying reasons for the appearance of waiting lists in the process of getting access to community gardens in Nijmegen?
The sub-questions are of a descriptive type and are derived from the main question using the corroborative types of knowledge-method as suggested by Verschuren and Doorewaard (2010, pp.106-111). The sub-questions are:
1. How is the access to food justice determined by a person’s participation in a community garden?
2. How are the community gardens under study affected by the regulations of the municipality of Nijmegen?
3. How are community gardens already coping with their waiting lists in order to reduce them?
The main as well as the sub-questions meet the two strict requirements, the questions help to achieve the research objective and the “[...] sub-questions provide a satisfactory answer to the central question from which they have been derived” (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010, p.98).
In the following, I will shortly examine in which way the sub-questions connect to the main research question and, as appropriate, which concepts are used to do so. With the first sub-question a connection is established between the access to food justice and the access to a community garden, written as participation in a community garden. Because food justice is used as a concept in this thesis, community gardens are examined on their capacity to offer access to food justice if a person participates in a community garden. Precisely, the first sub-question tries to examine how food justice is determined by researching the situation in which a person participates in a community garden.
16
With the second sub-question, the focus is shifted to the relation between the municipality and the community gardens and on the possible influence the municipality could possibly have on the community gardens. As the municipality is responsible for the policy of the city of Nijmegen, the assumption came about that there could possibly be an influence of the municipality on the community gardens as well. Also, this sub-question can approve or neglect whether the municipality has any influence on the length of a waiting lists and on the accessibility to community gardens.
The third sub-question examines how community gardens are already coping with the problem of waiting lists. This question could offer a possibility to gain further insights into the way in which the board of a community garden tries to avoid the problem of the appearance of waiting lists. This sub question connects to the intention of making recommendations in the end on relevant measurements.
2. Research framework
In the second part, the research framework, I will explain more about the research perspective, how food justice connects to this research, and the conceptual model. In the section of the research perspective, I will write about the use of specific literature and I will show which community gardens are included in this research. This is followed by the explanation of food justice and its connection to this research. Finally, the conceptual model is used to show assumptions on the possible relationship between the length of a waiting list, the degree of accessibility and the level of food justice.
2.1 Research perspective
This research studies six community gardens in Nijmegen by analysing the problems concerning the appearance of waiting lists and the accessibility to those gardens for urban dwellers. This problem-analysing research was conducted through the lens of food justice and unpacks the practical problem of the appearance of waiting lists. Both the members of a community garden and the members of the board of a community garden were able to give different factors influencing the appearance of waiting lists. In preparation for the fieldwork, I consulted the literature on urban agriculture, community gardens in general, community gardens in the Netherlands, food justice and specific literature on food justice in combination with community gardens.
In the table 2.1 shown below, community gardens of the city of Nijmegen are listed. This table does not include the community garden ‘De Kopse Hof’ because any attempt to make contact was dismissed. Thus, this research was conducted only in those
17
gardens listed below which lay within the municipality borders of the city of Nijmegen. It is important to mention that I have gathered the information in some cases on my own and some information I have derived from Eetbaar Nijmegen (2020).
Name garden Address Waiting list Link
Stevensgaarden Vossenhof 55
5534 VH Hatert Nijmegen
Yes, long http://www.atvstevensgaarden.nl/
‘T Achterveld Bredestraat Hees Nijmegen Yes, long Closed waiting list = No registration possible ‘tAchterveld. But no own website
De Rozentuin Rozenstraat 4 Wolfskuil Nijmegen
Yes, but not stated on
the internet. This information was gathered during the interview No website De Smalle Steeg Smalle Steeg 2 6546 AG Lindenholt Nijmegen
Yes, but short apparently http://www.volkstuinendesmallest eeg.nl/ De Pagode Verlengde Groenestraat Galgenveld Nijmegen Yes, long Maybe no registration possible No website De Schoffel Voorstadslaan 53A 6541 SJ Biezen Nijmegen Yes No website
18
2.2 Food Justice and this research
As mentioned before, this research is guided by the lens of food justice. In the scholar literature, food justice has been connected multiple times to urban agriculture practices, for example by Meenar and Hoover (2012).
In my opinion, food justice as a concept can contribute to this research by offering a way in which food issues can be assessed based on food access and food sovereignty. Firstly, scholars who study food justice aim to guarantee an equally distributed access to healthy food for all individuals. Secondly, having food sovereignty ensures that individuals are empowered with the right to choose their own agricultural and food production system. Those two goals are represented by urban agriculture projects as well, offering food access, and contributing to food security and sovereignty (Heynen et al., 2012; Horst et al., 2017). Thus, the approach of food justice offers a solid way of assessing community gardens in Nijmegen by examining the problem of waiting lists. As the following paragraph shows, the examination is conducted by taking different indicators into account.
As food justice covers a broad range of dimensions, the focus in this research is on the socio-economic dimension with indicators such as land ownership, access to fertile land, healthy food, and the people’s right to define their own food and agricultural systems, also referred to as food sovereignty (Heynen et al., 2012). Next to that is the focus on the demographic dimension with indicators such as race, ethnicity, class, citizenship, religion and gender and their overall level of access to community gardens (Horst et al., 2017). In this research, the above listed indicators of the socio-economic dimension come to the fore. This implicates that the demographic dimensions get less attention because of the assumption that waiting lists lower the accessibility to community gardens. Also, the focus of this research lays on a practical problem, therefore the socio-economic dimensions may play a bigger role in analysing the practical problem of waiting lists rather than the demographic dimension thereof.
2.3 Conceptual model
Based on the qualitative nature of this research the conceptual model consists of global and broad concepts open for a broader qualification and serves for exploratory usage. That means that the conceptual model is intended to be further elaborated on with the goal to make it more precise and fitting (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010).
19
Figure 2.2: The conceptual model used in this research.
This conceptual model shows that the length of a waiting list reduces the level of food justice a person is experiencing, as well as the degree of accessibility to a community garden. A reduced degree of accessibility in turn reduces the level of food justice as well. Thus, all relationships influence the level of food justice negatively.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research strategy
This practice-oriented research was held in the small-scale frame of a qualitative and interpreting approach. It was through an empirical method to be able to gain deeper insights in community gardens in Nijmegen. Within such an empirical method, a case study design was used. As this method brings depth into data collection, it was possible to gain information on the six community gardens and their waiting lists. The main intention was to analyse the underlying problems of the appearance of waiting lists in the city of Nijmegen. With this focus and the information gathered, it is not possible to generalize the outcome to other cities and it is thus of intrinsic value for the community gardens of the city of Nijmegen (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010). In the following the selection of the research strategy will be discussed.
3.1.1 Case study
Within this comparative case study, the research was conducted by using a small number of research units chosen by the selective strategy of similarity (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010, p. 180). As derived from the research objective, the importance of the appearance of waiting lists is a criterion on which the selection was based. All six community gardens have the appearance of waiting lists in common and have thus been chosen for this comparative case study. As this leads to the use of a qualitative research method, the
Length of waiting list Degree of Accessibility Level of Food Justice
20
emphasis is put on comparing and interpreting the results. Those results were generated through an intensive and depth generating method of a case study. This comparative case study design followed the structure of the hierarchical method divided in two stages: In the first stage, all cases were examined independently from each other. In the second and final stage, the input from the first stage was used to make a comparative analysis of all cases. The aim of the comparison was to find an explanation for the similarities and differences which have emerged from the first stage (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010).
3.1.2 Interviews and observations
To reach a triangulation of methods, semi-structured interviews and observations were applied. More specifically, a minimum of six semi-structured interviews was reached and held with different stakeholders involved in a community garden. Such stakeholders were the board of a community garden, the secretary, and the members. In total eight interviews were conducted following a semi-structured interview guide. One interview was held in each community garden, exceptional in ‘De Pagode’ where three interviews were conducted. The interview guide and a list of the interviewed persons is added to the appendices (pp.51-53).
To provide an alternative to face-to-face interviews, the use of technological online platforms as skype offers space to collaborate on the limitations caused by the global pandemic recently. Also, the method of providing e.g. a google document with open questions could offer a possibility to gain information in a proper way. This document can easily be shared, used, and answered by participants without being at a specific location. Providing an online document with open questions to different participants offers the opportunity to use the answers in the next “written interview’ by proving the gained knowledge with specific questions. The participant can answer the question over a longer period. Thus, he or she can think longer to provide answers that can be processed to develop knowledge aligned with the objective of this research. This can be an advantage over face-to-face interviews which tend to have a fast-moving character (Lupton, 2020). This alternative to face-to-face interviews was used once as a person was not willing to take place in any kind of communication, ether face-to-face nor online via i.e. skype and one interview took place on skype. The other six interviews were face-to-face interviews.
Observations took place in three community gardens: An observation was done in ‘De Pagode’ and ‘De Rozentuin’. The focus of an observation laid on observing the overall organization of space, the size of one parcel, the mode of use of a parcel and the diversification of community gardeners. Again, the situation caused by Covid-19 may have had an influence on the number of completed observation. Also, community gardens in
21
Nijmegen are private and closed to the public, what implicates a limited access for me as a researcher. Thus, in almost all cases I was not able to gain access to the community gardens to make observations. Two observation schemes are included to the appendices (pp. 53-54).
3.1.3 Adaptive Approach
The case study approach offers a range of flexibilities that gives space to a change of course during the research project. Of course, it is the aim of a researcher to work as precisely as possible but through the inadequate information given on the internet about community gardens in Nijmegen it is impossible to be fully prepared on the forehand. Thus, using an adaptive approach gives space to work on possible experienced negativities and difficulties appearing while doing an observation or an interview. Also, the recent situation concerning Covid-19 is restricting the possibilities a researcher has while doing face-to-face interviews. This situation could possibly influence the research project significantly.
However, the chosen approach leads to more readily accepted research results by people in the field but awareness needs to be raised on the fact that the results of a case study are often under pressure because of a lack of external validity. That means that the results are difficult to apply to broader populations or similar cases (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010). So, what is valid for community gardens in Nijmegen, could possibly not be the case in other places.
3.2 Research model
Based upon the research objective and the research perspective, a research model can be constructed. The study of the underlying problems which are encountered while requesting access to community gardens is based on the consultation of relevant scientific literature and on talks with experts, yielding the assessment criteria required for the problem analysis, by means of evaluating the six community gardens. A confrontation of the results from these six evaluations concludes with recommendations for the solution to the practical problem of long waiting lists.
22
Figure 3.1: The research model
3.3 Data analysis
After the interviews were conducted in the space of time from 30th April 2020 to 12th June 2020, the analysis of the interviews had started. To analyse the collected data some predetermined steps were followed. First, after completing the interviews the transcripts were written based on the audio recordings or handwritten notices of an interview. As three participants have not given their agreement on recording their interview, handwritten notices were made as precisely as possible. Due to the worldwide pandemic, the access to technical devices such as a proper computer and the digital program Atlas.ti were restricted. Because other measures such as borrowing a laptop were only a possibility at the writing stage of this research, I have decided to code the interviews on paper and by hand.
To do so, the transcripts were printed and controlled on mistakes. After that, I have started the coding process of the interviews by highlighting sentences in a specific colour. Such colours were used to mark sentences which seem important for answering the research questions as well as to show clearly to which research question a sentence could give answer to. I have used pink for sentences which could give answer to the main research question, yellow for the first sub-question, green for second sub-questions, and blue for the third sub-question. Next to that, a label i.e. a code was given to the highlighted sentences to filter the useful information from the trivial information. The aim of using those codes is to label every highlighted sentence in order to screen the essence of a
23
sentence in connection to the research objective. At this point of the data analysis, coding the interviews helped to gain an overview on what and in which way something was said. Also, the coding offered a stable way to gain access to the spoken words and their meaning. After that, a code book was made to gain an overview of each used code and its translation from Dutch to English, its description, and the frequency in which a certain code was used. After I have finished the code book, each interview transcript and its codes were revised by joining similar codes with each other to create universal codes. Such universal codes are codes such as ‘grond huren gemeente’ which categorize the data and were used in almost every interview to code sentences describing the same phenomenon. After all universal codes were filled into the code book, I had an overview of all of them and the possible contribution such a code could offer to answer the research questions. The contribution is expressed by attaching each code to a code group and each group to a category. Those final categories show to which research question a code is distributed to answer a part of a research questions. Finally, the results of the analysis are described in the next section.
4. Results
In this chapter an in-depth description of the results from the interviews is given and an overview is given by structuring this chapter ab initio in sections covering the research questions. Unfortunately, the aim to conduct one interview in all the seven community gardens within the borders of the municipality of Nijmegen was not achieved. After multiple attempts to communicate and after two visits at their location, it was not possible to get in contact with the board of the community garden ‘De Kopse Hof’ or with its gardeners. Thus, I made the decision to focus on the interviews conducted at the other six community gardens which gave me access to useful information. In summary, the eight interviews conducted at those six community gardens contribute to the information given in this chapter.
4.1 Participation and the access to food justice
This research pictures the participation in community gardens based on food justice principles. The results show to what extent the participation in community gardens contribute to a situation of food justice. In the following part, some different principles of food justice are discussed. These principles are collected by their meaningfulness regarding this research and by the frequency participants have mentioned them in the interviews.
24
4.1.1 Soil fertility and cultivation methods
Two of the food justice principles are soil fertility and cultivation methods. As food justice fights for even-handed access to fertile land, the soil fertility of the gardens under study were roughly identified. In general, a differentiation can be made between two types of soil based on the location of a community garden. Namely, between an old river clay ground and sandy ground. The sandy ground can be differentiated into coarse sand and fine
sand.
The following map (figure 4.1) of the city of Nijmegen shows the locations of the seven community gardens and the type of soil on a specific location. The community gardens’ locations can be found on three different types of soil. For example, the community garden ‘De Kopse Hof’ lays within the sand-coloured area which shows secondary podzol and coarse sand as a soil type. ‘De Smalle Steeg’ can be found within the dark green-coloured area in the west. This area is covered with old river clay ground, what is confirmed in the interview with a participant as well. He assures that a soil analysis found that neither the soil nor the water is contaminated, what ensures a healthy cultivation (R. Mousa, 2020). The other five community gardens lay on a sandy soil surrounded by buildings which is represented by the greyish-coloured area on the map below.
25
During an interview, one participant has indicated that ‘from the sandy soil nothing can be done’ (W. Oosterbaan, 2020). Another participant says that it is a poor soil which keeps no humidity (P. Verhoef, 2020). A third participant states about the sandy soil that there is a big layer of sand which needs to be fertilized each year (F. Jongeneelen, 2020). Next to that, two of them have indicated that the fact that the sandy ground is easy to prepare, is advantageous (P. Verhoef; W. Oosterbaan, 2020). On the other hand, this seems to be a reason why another person states that the community garden gives access to fertile land. Explicitly, through the activities conducted in the garden the feeling of happiness can be reached what in turn increases the appreciation for the land’s fertility degree (M. Klosters,
2020).
This bring us to the second principle of food justice in this research, namely the cultivation method. As the community gardens in Nijmegen must work with poor soil, it does not indicate that the gardeners work with chemical fertilizers. Quite the contrary. All participants have stated that they are either expected or mandated by the specific community garden’s policy to work with organic fertilizers. This implicates that the cultivation method is fully biological. For example, in ‘De Rozentuin’ the board and most of the members want to use biological seeds and organic fertilizers. Those seeds and fertilizers should originate from farms following biological or circular cultivation methods. The reason why people are gardening like this is to make their own food ideal come true (P. Verhoef, 2020). The board of ‘De Schoffel’ trusts their members to not make use of any pesticides, insecticides, or artificial manure. Their trust is based on a shared point of view, and that is biological cultivation without any use of chemical fertilizers (W.Oosterbaan, 2020). ‘De Smalle Steeg’ is the only community garden working with old river clay ground. A participant states that the ground is quite fertile, as he formulated it, but organic fertilizers are still used by many. This community garden association gives opportunities to use cow dung, mushroom dung, or compost (R. Mousa, 2020). This shows that all community gardens under study work with biological cultivation methods.
4.1.2 Autonomy
The third principle I want to discuss in the light of food justice is autonomy. In this research I asked the participant whether they feel more autonomous against the commercial food and agriculture system by participating in a community garden. This research has shown that the participation in a community garden practice creates limited autonomy. That means, that the participation in community gardens and the degree of autonomy depends on different factors and on the person him/herself. The degree of autonomy someone experiences is influenced by the attitude or motivation that a person has towards community gardening. Some participants join a community garden to enjoy
26
the practice itself and to be active and joyful. So, their aim is not specifically to be autonomous, they emphasize on the activity itself (F. Jongeneelen, 2020). Others join a
community garden to enjoy the profits of self-grown vegetables at any time of the year. Next to the attitude or motivation someone has, stands the fact that community gardeners are dependent on the seasons. The different seasons guide the degree of autonomy someone has at a certain time of the year. One participant says that she is highly dependent on the seasons, that she is bounded to them and that a small green house can help you to build up stocks (A. Kersten, 2020). This idea is predominantly stated by other participants in a different manner. One participant says that you can live up to 8 months from all the vegetables and fruits by freezing the harvest (R. Mousa, 2020). Others have explained their limited autonomy as the necessity of buying products in a supermarket they are not able to grow by themselves such as certain vegetables, rice, cheese, or meat (K. Mulder; R. Mousa, 2020).
Another factor which determines the degree of autonomy could be the feeling of freedom a person experiences by having a garden. One participant sees the garden as experiencing freedom, especially in a situation of economic crisis. In general, a community garden can offer the opportunity to limit the economic loss and its consequences for oneself, as well as support the financial situation by providing fruits and vegetables (M. Klosters, 2020).
4.1.3 Healthy food
The last principle of food justice which will be discussed, is the access to healthy food. Here, the question will be answered whether community gardens can offer possibilities to produce healthy vegetables and fruits or not. The following has arisen from the analysis of the interviews: The human need for healthy food can be achieved by community gardening because one is involved in the production of organic and biological food. This involvement offers appreciation for the produced food because participants know that they have grown their food by means of organic cultivation methods (M. Klosters, 2020). What is important to mention is that one participant explicitly states that she is concerned about the healthiness of her grown vegetables. She says that the community garden is next to a busy road and that the emissions and fine dust caused for example by cars could have an influence on the healthiness. She evaluates this as a factor which could seriously decrease the healthiness of the grown vegetables and fruits (D. van Aalst, 2020).
4.2 The municipalities relation to the gardens
In this part, the way in which the municipality has any influence on the community gardens is described. According to the analysis two relations are detected. One, the rental agreements and two, the rules and restrictions imposed by the municipality. In the
27
following, these two relations between the municipality and the community gardens are examined.
4.2.1 Rental agreement
One of the relations established between the municipality and the community gardens is the furnishing of rental agreements and the allocation of land through such agreements. This research has shown that most of the community gardens are dependent on the municipality when it comes to the leasing of land. Five of the seven community gardens are leasing land from the municipality, whereof data is missing from the community garden ‘De Kopse Hof’. But not only the municipality, also the organisation AVVN and the company ProRail play a role. AVVN is an organisation which facilitates and maintains urban agriculture in all its diversity by for example organising land and juridical procedures (AVVN, n.d.). ProRail is a Dutch railway company which provides railway infrastructure for the Netherlands. As ProRail is in the possession of railway tracks and the adjacent land, community gardens can in some cases lease the adjacent land to get access to suitable space. In my opinion a win-win situation is created by renting land to urban agricultural practices which otherwise would have no function. If so, ProRail is not responsible anymore for the maintenance of rented green spaces and at the same time, a community garden association gets more space to work on.
Figure 4.2: The location of gardens nearby railway tracks
In Nijmegen two community gardens lease land from ProRail because they are located next to a railway track, as shown in figure 4.2. First, the garden ‘De Pagode’ is located next to the railway track which runs from Nijmegen central station to the next stop in Nijmegen Heyendaal. ‘De Pagode’ leases only the smaller part of their land, located near
28
the station Nijmegen Heyendaal, from ProRail. The other part is leased from the municipality. Second, the garden ‘De Rozentuin’ is leasing a small piece of land from ProRail as well. The garden property abuts against the railway track heading from Nijmegen central station to the next stop in Nijmegen Goffert. Just as ‘De Pagode’, the community garden association ‘De Rozentuin’ leases from ProRail as well as from the municipality. Community gardens as ‘De Schoffel’, ‘De Smalle Steeg’ and ‘T Achterveld’ are exclusively leasing land from the municipality. ‘De Stevensgaarden’ has no relation to the municipality at all because this association is exclusively leasing land from AVVN. The allocation of the rental agreement partners of the community gardens in Nijmegen is shown as well in the diagram 4.1.
Diagram 4.1: The allocation of rental agreement partners of community gardens in Nijmegen
4.2.2 Rules and restrictions
The municipality of Nijmegen has established some rules by incorporating them in rental agreements. As this research is not fully able to list up a detailed list of every rule and restriction, only the specific rules and restrictions of a community is written here. Therefore, the description of the rules and restrictions will be summed up by examining every garden under study on itself.
In ‘De Rozentuin’, the municipality has determined that it is not allowed to make a fire because of the houses and the railway track in the immediate vicinity (P. Verhoef, 2020). Furthermore, some restrictions are made to the possibility of housing in this community garden. Housing, for example in the form of sheds, need to be of a semi-permanent type and are only allowed if it is not suitable for beds. By giving this building restriction, the municipality tries to avoid the settlement of homeless people in the sheds (P. Verhoef, 2020). The municipality made a rule that the tress in ‘De Pagode’ should not be higher than 15 meters but not further rules are worth knowing or not determined at all
Rental agreement partners of community gardens in
Nijmegen
29
(F. Jongeneelen, 2020). In ‘De Schoffel’, the municipality only allow semi-permanent sheds because of the municipality’s requirement for immediately removable housing (W. Oosterbaan, 2020). Rarely is that the municipality owns the sheds in the community garden ‘T Achterveld’ and asked this community garden to maintain those sheds. Thus, a rule is that, if a shed is decomposed, this community garden is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the respective shed (M. Klosters, 2020). A restriction is given concerning the hights of the sheds in the community garden ‘De Smalle Steeg’ (R. Mousa, 2020). Unfortunately, no further restrictions or rules are defined or shared in the interview. So, the awareness should be settled on the fact that this description could possibly not be complete. Nevertheless, this section shows us that the influence of the municipality on the community gardens is not very present what may indicate that the municipality has no influence on the waiting lists at all.
4.3 How community gardens are coping with their waiting lists
Some community gardens have already implemented different measurements to cope with the problem of wating lists. During the interview, participants have suggested some methods which could help to potentially solve the problem of waiting lists. In the following, the different approaches are discussed shortly. Whether those approaches can successfully decrease the length of a waiting list, cannot be forecasted at the current moment.
4.3.1 Dynamic waiting lists
In contrast to static waiting lists which are processed in chronological order, known as first come, first served, two other ways of processing are suggested, here called dynamic waiting lists. For example, ‘T Achterveld’ is currently waiting till all names on their waiting list are processed. As soon as every interested person is offered a parcel, the waiting list is again open for a specific amount of enrolments. How many persons then can enrol, is not determined yet. But as soon as enough persons have enrolled and a garden becomes available again, the waiting list is processed randomly. Thus, no order is followed but a person is chosen by lot. This approach offers the same chance for getting a garden to every person on their waiting list.
Another example for dynamic waiting lists is the idea given by a participant from ‘De Rozentuin’. The suggestion is to administer a common waiting list on which every enrolment is documented, independent from the gardens. Thus, it makes no difference if you enrol for garden A or for garden B, every person is placed on the same one waiting list. Nevertheless, it should be possible to give a preference for a specific garden. As soon as a garden gets available anywhere in Nijmegen, the person in the first place is asked whether this garden suits or not. If so, the person can have the available garden and if
30
not, the person in the second place is asked, and so on. The waiting list is still chronological but the possibility to get a garden is higher because all seven community gardens are responsible for the processing of the common waiting list.
4.3.2 Division of gardens and their policy
Another measurement is to divide one garden into two smaller ones. Community gardens as for example ‘De Smalle Steeg’, ‘T Achterveld and ‘De Stevensgaarden’ are strongly emphasising on the division of community gardens already. As mentioned in multiple interviews, 100 square metres is the most requested surface area of a garden parcel (D. Van Alst, W. Oosterbaan, A. Kersten, 2020). Therefore, garden parcels with a surface of 200 square metres or bigger can be divided into two gardens or more dependent on the available surface area. But this measurement can only be undertaken if a person decides to leave the community garden association and his or her garden becomes available again for others. Also, another critic on this measurement could be that at a specific moment all gardens will probably have a surface area of at least 100 square metres. If so, the measurement is null and void and cannot further be conducted. To keep in mind, this measurement makes sense to start with and could be used to organize the community garden parcels again. As the result section 4.4.1. has shown, the trend that a higher total number of gardens within a community garden tend to have shorter waiting lists,
strengthens this measurement in its effectivity. A further measurement is to reorganize the policy of the community garden
association. As the policy is a sensitive topic for some community gardens, it should not be the case that a community garden fell impelled to change its policy after reading this. As this research has shown, some community gardens reorganize their policy because a better organization of the policy and its content tend to have advantages for the board, the gardeners and for interested urban dwellers. Those advantages could be a better overview of the policy in general, clear communication and more knowledge on possible restrictions or rules. One participant said during an interview: ‘We do not want to be strict, just consequent. We want to manage, but we do not want to be like police officers’ (R. Mousa, 2020). This statement invites to think about those measurements and to find a way in which those measurements are catered to the own needs.
4.4 The reasons for the appearance of waiting lists
To answer the main question of this research the underlying reasons for the appearance of waiting lists were investigated during the fieldwork process. Factors as the size and number of gardens, the frequency of garden divisions, the flow of people, the policy of a community garden, the interest in community gardens and the lack of space may
31
influence the appearance of waiting lists. In the following, the different factors are closely described as all of them are mentioned repetitive during the interviews.
Diagram 4.2: The length of waiting lists of the community gardens under study
In the diagram 4.2, the length of the different waiting lists is shown by monitoring the number of people which are on a waiting list of a specific garden. Those numbers are a snapshot of spring 2020 and could have changed slightly already. To shortly evaluate the diagram, 24 people are on the waiting list of ‘De Pagode’ and therefore, this garden has the longest waiting list in due May 2020. In the following, the reasons for this length of their waiting list is further investigated as multiple factors could weigh.
In contrast, ‘T Achterveld’ has the shortest waiting list, respectively seven persons are on the waiting list at the time of the interview in May 2020. The length of seven people is a result from closing the waiting lists to new enrolments. Consequently, the number of people on their waiting list is reduced slowly and remains low, opting for the moment in which the waiting list is completely reduced to zero.
In general, the median of the length of waiting lists is 14 and the average is approximately 13 people on a waiting list. Another garden which lays beneath the average is ‘De Schoffel’ with eight persons on the waiting list. This could be a result of the hidden location between buildings, no visible access path, no online presence, and no broader publicity in Nijmegen. In the next few passages, the different influencing factors will be examined carefully. 13 7 15 13 24 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Stevensgaarden T Achterveld De Rozentuin De Smalle Steeg De Pagode De Schoffel
