Invasion of the worms : wormhotels as spaces of community citizenship

(1)

Invasion of the worms:

Wormhotels as spaces of

community citizenship

Kim van Wijngaarden

11268131

Bachelor’s Thesis

Future Planet Studies, Human Geography

Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences

University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam

Supervisor: Carolina Maurity Frossard

Second reader: Ori Rubin

Words: 17616

17 June 2019

(2)

2

Abstract

Kim van Wijngaarden, Future Planet studies, University of Amsterdam Abstract of bachelor’s Thesis, Submitted 17 June 2019:

Invasion of the worms: Wormhotels as spaces of community citizenship.

The aim of this research is to investigate how a wormhotel in a neighbourhood relates to community citizenship based on the definition by Phillips and Berman (2001). As literature shows that the presence of a local initiative such as a wormhotel encourages social cohesion within the neighbourhood, research is conducted about the social impacts with the aid of the concept of social cohesion based on the domains of Kearns and Forrest (2000). The data for this thesis were collected by participant observation and interviewing employees, participants and residents within seven different neighbourhoods in Amsterdam.

In the first part, an overview is provided about the emergence and process of wormhotels in Amsterdam, the expected social impact and future implications. In the analysis, the shared values and social networks for the coordinators of wormhotels are considered. From which it appeared that they experience an increase in social cohesion due to the wormhotel. Next, the participants are analysed based on their shared values, identity, social networks and social control. These results suggest that after the arrival of the wormhotel, participants do not experience an expansion of their social relationships within the neighbourhood but that it is often accompanied by other social activities in the neighbourhood. Finally, the section about non-participating residents illustrates that social cohesion due to the presence of wormhotel cooperates with mechanisms of social inclusion and social exclusion.

In conclusion, the thesis argues that a wormhotel on itself does not lead to social cohesion in the neighbourhood but it does relate to community citizenship because a wormhotel can intensify existing forms of social inclusion within the neighbourhood although accompanied by forms of social exclusion. In this way, this thesis contributes closing the scientific gap about the social dimension of a local organic waste system. The author recommends further research on the environmental impact of a wormhotel.

(3)

3

4 Background information... 18 5 Analysis ... 21 5.1 Hoteliers ... 21 5.1.1 Shared values ... 21 5.1.2 Social networks ... 22 5.2 Magalhaensplein ... 25 5.2.1 Shared values ... 25 5.2.2 Identity ... 26 5.2.3 Social networks ... 27 5.2.4 Social control ... 29 5.2.5 Social inclusion ... 30 6 Conclusion ... 34 6.1 Discussion ... 36 7 Bibliography ... 37 Appendix ... 41 A: Operationalisation table ... 41 B: Data Magalhaensplein ... 42 C: Respondents ... 43

(4)

4

E: Interview guide experts ... 45

F: Interview guide hoteliers ... 47

G: Interview guide participants ... 50

(5)

5

1 Introduction

Introduction

Since 2015, beehive-like towers called ‘wormhotels’ have been found in the streets of Amsterdam. They are part of a local initiative in which local residents separate their organic waste to make compost with the help of worms. What originated as an initiative of an Amsterdam citizen has grown in two years to more than hundred wormhotels throughout the Netherlands. Newspapers call the wormhotels a ‘resounding success’ (Het Parool, 2019) and with headlines such as ‘Wormhotels offers city-dweller compost: I now have more contact with people in the street than before’1_(van

Ammelrooy, 2018) the wormhotels in Amsterdam are becoming increasingly known. According to the company of the wormhotels, the main reason for the success of the wormhotels lies behind the social cohesion it generates for the neighbourhood in which the wormhotel is placed. This provides an interesting research opportunity on which this thesis will focus.

Social relevance

Cities play a crucial role in the fight against climate change since they are responsible for approximately 80 per cent of the greenhouse gasses emitted worldwide (Satterthwaite, 2008). Urbanization is expected to rise to an urban population of 67 per cent in 2050 and climate change may worsen the quality of life of citizens all over the world (van Leeuwen, 2013). Consequently, climate change could be seen as an urban problem. Therefore, goals need to be set and work will need to be done to halt the reduction in quality of life caused by climate change (Spiegelhalter & Arch, 2010).

The municipality of Amsterdam is currently taking action to make a transition to a circular economy (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015) as it has the advantage of reducing greenhouse gas emission of up to seventy per cent compared to a business-as-usual economy (Wijkman & Skånberg, 2015). For this reason, Amsterdam strives for an economy in which we use energy, water, raw materials and food in a smart way and where waste is a raw material (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015). Good waste separation is of the utmost importance when optimising the value of organic waste streams (Consonni & Viganò, 2011). The municipality therefore has the goal of raising the waste separation percentage to 65 per cent in 2020 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015). However, no organic waste is separated at source in Amsterdam and the separated waste share is below the Dutch average (CBS, 2016). This is partly because Amsterdam chooses not to collect organic waste as a separate stream as the environmental gain does not outweigh the financial costs (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016). The contribution to saving CO² emissions is only 5,500 tons/year for an organic waste system, while for example the plastic waste system led to a saving of 25,000 tons CO²/year.

Although the municipality is still far below the goal, action is being taken through local initiatives such as wormhotels (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016), where local residents compost their organic waste in a cupboard on the street with the help of worms. This initiative has received a lot of attention and interest since its inception and the number of wormhotels is spreading across the country.

Scientific relevance

This speaks to a broader set of literature about transition theories as sustainable development is a never-ending process of social change which involves multiple transitions. Within the debate about how modern industrial societies can make the transition to sustainable development, there is a growing interest in the governance of socio-technical transitions (Grin, Rotmans, & Schot, 2010). In this thesis the term transition is defined as the change from one sort of practice or system to another one. Understanding transitions is important when dominant solutions are locked-in within society and thereby support unsustainable development (Sanne, 2002). This while there are more sustainable

1_{Translated from the original title: Wormenhotel biedt stedeling compost: 'Ik heb nu meer contact met} mensen in de straat dan voorheen’.

(6)

6 alternatives that are not being implemented because they are being suppressed by current dominant approaches.

Because transitions are complex and multilayer processes, the multilevel perspective (MLP) is used as a theory to understand transitions. MLP is used as an analysis tool or can for example be used by the Dutch government as a policy tool for understanding and governing transitions towards sustainable development (Kern & Smith, 2008). In short, MLP describes a transition as a socio-technical system with three different levels: the exogenous landscape, the regime and the niches (Figure 1). The landscape is putting pressure on the functioning of the existing regime. While the niches also exert pressure on the existing regime and try to ‘break it open’ so that the system adapts to the niches and innovations can be put into practice (Grin, 2012).

Figure 1. A schematic representation of the Multi -Level Perspective theory, with the three different levels and their interactions (Geels, 2002).

However, the existing literature about transitions tends to focus on the sociotechnical aspects of transitions. There are many scientific debates going on that address the circular economy and waste management but the theories that arise from these debates often focus on closing large-scale waste management systems. These systems concentrate on waste management from industries and companies, while paying little attention to the local level of households (Circle Economy, 2014; Consonni & Viganò, 2011). Also, the usefulness of organic waste is only valued when it generates energy (Malinauskaite et al., 2017; Consonni & Viganò, 2011), while the usefulness for other purposes such as social cohesion has hardly been investigated. The research of Righi, Oliviero, Pedrini, Buscaroli and Della Casa (2013) about a similar system as the wormhotels in Amsterdam showed the many technological advantages for the transitions towards an organic waste system such as a strong reduction in road transport, low energy requirement of the process itself and energy and resource savings by using the compost. However, Righi et al. (2013) did another observation that is of great interest for this thesis. Namely, the social advantages that were gained with the organic waste system such as an increased public acceptability of waste treatment facilities and an increase in the awareness among citizens on waste management issues.

Other authors tend to focus on the governance levels of transition. For example, Kemp, Loorbach and Rotmans (2007) analysed the Dutch waste management transition by looking at the different types of governance that are needed. According to Seyfang and Haxeltine (2012) this focus in transition literature is at the expense of social innovation, movements and actors. In their research about grassroots innovation, they investigated to what extent civil society can act as a potential agent

(7)

7 in transition processes. It has been stated by them that this perspective is often neglected in the systems innovation field but is now gaining increasing attention.

So, it can be stated that there is a gap in the literature about transitions in which niche development at the community level is underexposed. Only recently has attention been paid to the idea that a niche movement can also arise from society. The wormhotel is an example of an initiative that develops from the bottom up in society. The wormhotel project clearly identifies the desire by groups of people in Amsterdam to participate in organic waste separation, despite the municipality’s expectation that the levels of participation will fall when conducting an integrated system for collecting organic waste (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016). However, further research on these social effects has not yet taken place. There are no authors in the scientific literature that have dealt with the social dimension of an organic waste system. This scientific gap is interesting, since even though the social dimension remains underexposed in literature, it works as a means to make an environmental project a success (Vifell & Soneryd, 2012; Dempsey, Bramley, Power, & Brown, 2011; Drijver, 1992). Therefore, many scholars have urged for the involvement of the community level in order to raise awareness that will trigger a large scale shift towards circular actions and support a transition (Bastein, Roelofs, Rietveld, & Hoogendoorn, 2013; Kok, Wurpel, & Ten Wolde, 2013). This thesis contributes to filling this gap by investigating the social effects of a local organic waste system, which reflects the scientific relevance for this research.

Problem statement

One of these reasons why wormhotels are gaining much attention is the discourse in which the wormhotel is framed as a means to increase social cohesion in the neighbourhood. In addition to the wormhotel being seen as a way to increase the percentage of separated waste by the municipality, the presence of a wormhotel would also contribute to an increase in social cohesion in the neighbourhood (Smart Stories, n.d.; Menkhorst, 2017).

From the discipline of psychology, a research has been conducted about the effects of a wormhotel on social cohesion within a neighbourhood. (Hoetjes, Rademaker, & de Wit, 2017). However, this research was conducted in the early stages of the implementation of the wormhotels in Amsterdam and was limited to two neighbourhoods. Besides, it did not incorporate the theories that follow from the debates within the discipline of human geography. It is therefore important to investigate the impacts of a wormhotel in a neighbourhood from a human geography perspective.

Other forms of local initiatives in neighbourhoods such as community gardens have also been described in the literature as a way to increase social contacts in a neighbourhood (Ghose & Pettygrove, 2014; Kingsley & Townsend, 2006). However, they also observe negative consequences because participation in a neighbourhood initiative can lead to conditional forms of community citizenship that therefore cause social exclusion (Staeheli, 2008; Kurtz, 2001; Pudup, 2008; Ghose & Pettygrove, 2014). That is why this new form of the wormhotels as a local initiative for an organic waste system in the neighbourhood offers new research possibilities to investigate how a local waste system relates to community citizenship.

Aim

The aim of this research is to investigate how a wormhotel in a neighbourhood relates to community citizenship. By perceiving the wormhotel initiative as a local initiative, it can be analysed whether the wormhotels induce community citizenship. In this way, this paper aims to address the existing research gap by exploring the relevance of local initiatives within niche development and exploring the social impacts of a local waste system. This leads to the following research question: ‘How does the presence of a wormhotel relate to community citizenship in the neighbourhood?’

(8)

8

Structure of thesis

This paper proceeds as follows: in the next chapter the scientific literature background of this research is described in the theoretical framework. In the methodology chapter the subquestions are formulated with the corresponding operationalization. Besides, it is explained how interviews and participant observation are used to answer the research questions. The third chapter contains background information as it is necessary to provide a further explanation of the wormhotel and the company, so that the analysis of the collected data can be better understood. During the analysis, the collected data from interviews is linked to the literature in the theoretical framework. This makes it possible to answer the research questions in the conclusion. This is followed by the discussion. The research ends with a literature list and an appendix.

(9)

9

2 Theoretical framework

In this chapter the theoretical framework is discussed, which consists of theories and concepts that are relevant for this research. Based on literature about community gardens, the theory of community citizenship is explained as a way to further understand the wormhotel initiative. The concept of social cohesion is then clarified as a tool for community citizenship, consisting of different domains.

2.1 Community citizenship

Grassroots

As described by Seyfang and Haxeltine (2012), the involvement of the community level in transitions does not have to come from above of the regime. In their research, they demonstrated that society is capable of causing a transition as a niche actor. These social innovations that arise at the community level are called ‘grassroots innovations’ by Seyfang and Smith (2007). They are innovative networks in which bottom-up solutions are proposed for sustainable development. It differs from socio-technical innovations because the grassroots innovations operate at a social level, with the interests and values of the community leading. Examples of grassroots initiatives are local food projects, co-housing and recycling schemes. Church and Elster (in Seyfang & Smith, 2007) determined the environmental and social impacts of grassroot innovations, it first of all contributes to the development of new ways to work towards sustainable developments, thereby raising environmental awareness, engaging people in environmental problems in their daily lives, changing the attitudes of local policy makers and as a form of education. As a result of these participative niche practices, individuals and communities benefit from greater empowerment, confidence, skills and capacity for further community-based action (Church & Elster, as cited in Seyfang & Smith, 2007).

The founding of the wormhotels can be seen as a grassroot initiative, as an Amsterdam resident himself took the initiative to maintain a wormhotel together with the neighbourhood for better waste separation. However, in its current form, the wormhotels do not arise from the neighbourhoods needs and mobilizations as the municipality of Amsterdam plays an organizational role. That is why in the remainder of this thesis the wormhotel is regarded as a 'local initiative'. Community gardens

As already stated in the introduction, there are no authors in the scientific literature that have dealt with the social dimension of a local organic waste system. That is why this theoretical framework is based on literature about community gardens, where a communal garden in a neighbourhood is created by citizenship activism and not as state support. Ghose and Pettygrove (2014) described in their article how grassroots community gardens enable citizens to grow their own food and participate in shaping their urban environments. Ghose and Pettygrove (2014) conceive these community gardens as; ‘spaces through which citizens can challenge dominant power relations and claim rights to the city’ (p.1092). These gardens are perceived as grassroot spaces because citizens have supported their development and volunteered to build them. Ghose and Pettygrove (2014) observed that as a result of the community gardens, participants of different races and ages interacted with each other. For example, the use of benches around the community gardens gave residents the possibility to socialize. Many passers-by often pause to converse with the residents and talk about the garden. From these interactions a feeling of a community emerged among the participants that formerly did not know each other. The same accounts from the observation of community gardens in Melbourne by Kingsley and Townsend (2006), members of this urban community garden experienced benefits of increased social cohesion, social support and social connections. Respondents noted that the gardens functioned as a place to be connected with the community, whereas before they felt isolated. The community gardens also served as a form of education about gardening and nature for the youth, as they had the opportunity to play in a green and safe environment (Ghose & Pettygrove, 2014).

However, it was also observed by Ghose and Pettygrove (2014) that this citizen participation is not inherently transformative or empowering (Staeheli, 2008). First, they concluded that citizen

(10)

10 participation in the sense of claiming rights in the urban environment can cause a sense of conditional citizenship. This means that membership is only available to those with resources. This is what Perkins (2009) described as an ‘unjust political economy’, in which only those who are able and willing to volunteer earn citizenship rights. The conditional citizenship is been legitimized by linking citizenship practice and volunteerism to discourses of place-making, empowerment and local autonomy (Lepofsky & Fraser, 2003). Those discourses are individualistic since it promotes self-help and draws on notions of participation in the community (van Houdt, Suvarierol, & Schinkel, 2011). Pudup (2008) therefore criticises the use of community gardens since a group of urban residents sharing neighbourhood proximity can exist without having them any further relationship. This corresponds to the research of Kurtz (2001), who stated that issues of enclosure, inclusion and exclusion lie at the intersection of community gardens. As many urban community gardens are locked and fenced against vandalism, the access to the garden space is limited to the gardeners. This has implications of how gardeners and other urban residents experience the community garden. Secondly, the conditional membership for the community gardens is for those who produce space conforming to government specifications as in regulating where and how they exist (Ghose & Pettygrove, 2014). The community activity in their case study was framed as an activity that can contribute to the city’s goals.

Citizenship

The concept of citizenship appears to be an important part of grassroots innovations in society. Within the field of human geography, citizenship has grown significantly as a concept and a focus of research. Kofman (1995) generally defined it as ‘the rights and obligations that accrue to individuals as full members of a community’ (p.122). There are various different kinds of spaces through which citizenship is practiced (Painter & Philo, 1995). However, within this thesis the definition of citizenship is being understand as a sense of belonging to a group of people, as being broader than the understanding of a ‘community’ by geographical proximity. By using a citizenship framework on the wormhotel initiatives, attention is drawn to the extent to which individuals can participate within their communities and have access to community resources.

Although citizenship is defined in many ways in scientific literature, the concept is explained in this thesis by identifying two different strands, which are clarified in the article of Phillips and Berman (2001). The first is the liberal or individualistic citizenship which is based on the rights to membership via formal status. Within the political field, citizenship is associated with legal connotations defined by geographical borders and is being used to differentiate ingroups and outgroups. The mechanisms of exclusion and inclusion regulate the membership within socio-cultural and political communities, as who counts as a citizen depends on relations with the ‘outsiders’ as well as within the space (Painter & Philo, 1995; Kofman, 1995). The second strand is that of republican or communitarian citizenship where membership is achieved by taking an active participatory role in self-determining communities (Stewart, 1995). From this strand, Phillips and Berman (2001) developed a definition of the term community citizenship as; ‘community citizenship refers to the possession by members of a community of a range of social and cultural (and to a lesser extent civil and political) rights and responsibilities as a distinct element of their national citizenship rights’ (p.24). It is more than a group experiencing a strong sense of identity and solidarity, as they state: ‘it is that a community is vested with or has taken a range of rights, duties and obligations that otherwise would be vested in the relationship between the nation state and each member of the community’ (p.24).

Criteria for the effective introduction of community citizenship is social quality, this can be defined as: ‘the extent to which citizens are able to participate in the social and economic life of their communities under conditions which enhance their well-being and individual potential’ (Beck, van der Maeson, & Walker, as cited in Phillips & Berman, 2001, p.180). Phillips and Berman (2001) have defined the different elements of social quality, consisting of social inclusion, social cohesion and social empowerment. These elements are connected as follows. Social inclusion provides the community with the opportunity to pursue empowerment through equality principles, so it functions as the condition for empowerment. Social cohesion consists of the networks within the community and

(11)

11 thereby makes empowerment possible, it forms the process of empowerment. Conversely, social cohesion cannot be fully expressed in a community if it is not empowered.

2.1.1 Social cohesion

Social cohesion, social inclusion and empowerment tend to be the elements of community citizenship. In order to consider the wormhotels as spaces of community citizenship, a further explanation of these concepts is necessary in order to analyse the wormhotels. As the company behind the wormhotels argues that a wormhotel makes a positive contribution to social cohesion in the neighbourhood, it was decided in this thesis to use social cohesion as the main concept. Besides, the relation between social cohesion and environmental sustainability is often researched and appears to influence each other mutually (Medved, 2016; Uzzell, Pol, & Badenas, 2002). Uzzell et al. (2002) hypothesized that the greater the social cohesion, the greater the probability of sustainable behaviour.

Social cohesion is defined in many ways, in this research the definition of Chan, To and Chan (2006) is used: ‘Social cohesion is a state of affairs concerning both the vertical and the horizontal interactions among members of society as characterized by a set of attitudes and norms that includes trust, a sense of belonging and the willingness to participate and help, as well as their behavioural manifestations.’ (p.290). Cohesive social systems are characterized by a sense of group identification, belonging and shared values. But also frequency and intensive contacts between members, mutual trust and participation. A lack of social cohesion means an individualistic society that can lead to isolation, loneliness or immoral behaviour among residents (De Hart, Maas-De Waal, & Roes, 2002). Chan et al. (2006) argue that social cohesion consists of two dimensions which provides a theoretically grounded framework for measuring and comparing the state of social cohesion in different societies. The first dimension is horizontal which focuses on the cohesion within civil society, while the second dimension is vertical and looks at the cohesion between the state and civil society. In this research, the focus lies on the horizontal dimension as defined by Chan et al. (2006) since the municipality of Amsterdam is not actively involved at the neighbourhood level, despite financially supporting the wormhotels.

Because social cohesion is a comprehensive concept, different domains of social cohesion as defined by Kearns and Forrest (2000) are described that are considered to be important for analysing community citizenship. First, social cohesion can be created through proximity, a shared lifestyle and shared needs that can be collectively satisfied (Uzzell et al., 2002). Shared values within a culture are ‘a common set of moral principles and codes of behaviour through which to conduct their relations with one another’ (Kearns & Forrest, 2000, p. 997). Secondly, shared values generate a shared identity which is an important element for social cohesion (Kearns & Forrest, 2000). Uzzell et al. (2002) presumed that the presence of a strong sense of identity, which is expressed through the collective social relations, causes more environmental friendly behaviour. From this, the third domain of social networks follows as well, which takes place between the domains of social cohesion. It is even stated that sustainability can be achieved through social cohesion leading to a place-related social identity. They describe the role of identity in a good-quality environment as: ‘identity may be achieved through place identification as residents strongly identify with and work to maintain their good-quality residential environment’ (p.31). It is proposed that the greater the residential satisfaction, the stronger the place identity (Lalli, 1992). Besides, it is expected that a satisfied resident shows more responsible behaviour with respect to the physical environment (Lord & Rent, 1987). This works on both sides, as Uzzell et al. (2002) concluded that an environment that fits the aspirations of its residents produces higher levels of satisfaction. Fourthly, shared values and a social identity contribute to the level of social control in the neighbourhood. Social control at the neighbourhood level is the extent to which norms and values are controlled by local residents (Kearns & Forrest, 2000). In a cohesive neighbourhood with intensive contact between residents, social control is generally greater. Here local residents pay more attention to each other and it is more common to address each other's behaviour. A lack of social control can lead to deterioration of a neighbourhood or to immoral behaviour such as crime (Kearns & Forrest, 2000). Finally, social cohesion offers opportunities for all residents within a

(12)

12 framework of accepted values and institutions (Dahrendorf et al., 1995). Therefore, the concept of social inclusion is important, which refers to the access to informal networks of emotional, social and material support (Chan et al., 2016). Despite the fact that social inclusion is not considered as a single concept in this thesis, the literature on community gardens shows that it is accompanied by social cohesion. For example, Phillips and Berman (2001) state ‘social inclusion provides the principles of equality of opportunity that gives communities the realistic choice to seek empowerment if they so wish’ (p.20). Social inclusion is therefore considered in this study as a consequence of social cohesion. According to Lister (2000), social cohesion and inclusion contribute to strong, fair and just societies for present and future communities (Dempsey et al., 2011). It is related to social exclusion, since social cohesion in the neighbourhood can lead to the exclusion of others (Forrest & Kearns, 2001). Kurtz (2001) observed the mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion as a result of social cohesion in the community gardens. When the social inclusion in neighbourhoods consists of residents with the same expectations, outlooks, level of affluence and anxieties it may co-exist with social exclusion (Forrest & Kearns, 2001). In the case of the wormhotels, the ingroup are the participants that use the wormhotels and the outgroup are the not-participating residents. When conducting research in the neighbourhoods where the wormhotels are implemented, exploring who can participate and who cannot, gives insight into the social cohesion of the neighbourhood.

From this literature review on social cohesion it can be concluded that social cohesion at the neighbourhood level is subdivided into the indicators of shared values, identity, social networks, social control and social inclusion.

(13)

13

3 Methodology

3.1 Research questions

The aim of this research is to investigate the social impacts of a wormhotel in the neighbourhoods where they are implemented in. By perceiving the wormhotel initiative as a local initiative, it can be analysed whether the wormhotels induces community citizenship. By using social cohesion as an analytical tool, the impact of the wormhotel can be analysed in a broader way. This leads to the following research question:

‘How does the presence of a wormhotel relate to community citizenship in the

neighbourhood?’

The main question will be answered on the basis of two sub-questions arising from the concept of social cohesion:

How is social cohesion in a neighbourhood influenced by the presence of a wormhotel?

The literature has shown that the presence of a grassroot initiative can ensure that participating local residents build a social network and support each other (Ghose & Pettygrove, 2014; Kingsley & Townsend, 2006). This sub-question will attempt to find out whether the arrival of a wormhotel in a neighbourhood leads to an increase in social networks. In this way it can also be investigated whether the participating residents have the same norms and values, whereby the motives for participating to the wormhotel can also be a shared identity. In this way it can also be analysed whether this has actually led to an increase in social control, as the literature states (Kearns & Forrest, 2000). In addition, it allows to analyse to what extent the participating residents feel connected to the neighbourhood, this depends on the degree to which they are satisfied with the neighbourhood. By analysing the different domains of social cohesion in neighbourhoods where a wormhotel is active, it can be analysed how this relates to community citizenship.

How do non-participants experience and perceive the presence of a wormhotel in their neighbourhood?

This sub-question focuses on the possible consequence of a wormhotel in a neighbourhood. Literature about community gardens showed that social inclusion can lead to a form of conditional citizenship (Staeheli, 2008; Kurtz, 2001; Pudup, 2008; Ghose & Pettygrove, 2014). This is accompanied by social exclusion. By focusing on the perception of the outgroup (the non-participating local residents), the relations between the groups can be analysed.

3.2 Operationalisation

In this thesis social cohesion is followed along the line of the horizontal dimension as defined by Chan et al. (2006) and is used as the concept to analyse community citizenship. The indicators and variables that follow from this are based on the article of Forrest and Kearns (2001) who conducted research into how social cohesion can be operationalized for research purposes.

By determining the incentives, objectives, codes of behaviour and practices, the shared values can be measured. This results, for example, in the question of the motives of participants to participate in the wormhotel, motives why residents do not want to participate in the wormhotel are also important. Besides, shared practices such as the social involvement of residents in the neighbourhood also indicate the mutual values of residents. For example, asking the participants about their opinion of a good citizen will illustrate whether a wormhotel is seen as a way to become a good citizen which makes participants ‘better’ citizens than not-participants.

The variables to measure the sense of identity that the participants experience, are the attachment to place and intertwining of personal and place identity. These variables include questions such as the extent to which the residents are attached and satisfied with the neighbourhood.

(14)

14 The third indicator is social networks and mainly comes down to the quantity and quality of relationships that local residents have with each other. Social networks can be measured with the variables of participation, the degree of social interaction within the wormhotel community, neighbourhood activities, the experience of wormhotel activities and finally the contact among local residents. This results into questions in the amount of activities in the neighbourhood and the kinds of relationship participants have with other residents. Besides, mapping the social networks within the community can demonstrate to what extent a closed group is present within the community as a result of the wormhotel.

Finally, there is social inclusion, which deals with the extent to which a process of exclusion is associated with the wormhotel, for which an equal access to emotional, social and material support is the variable. Additionally, the characteristics of the respondents can help determine the ingroups and outgroups as a result of social inclusion. For example, this indicator looks at corresponding ideas, outlooks, level of affluence and fears that, according to Forrest and Kearns (2001 can lead to exclusion.

In Appendix A the operationalisation table of the concept social cohesion is included, consisting

of the indicators and the variables. The interviews guides that followed from this operationalisation are included in the appendix as well (Appendix E to H).

3.3 Research strategy

To answer the research question, a qualitative research strategy is used to obtain detailed information about the wormhotels in which experiences, opinions and perspectives are traced, this in order to gain a deeper understanding of the social consequences of a wormhotel. Because this thesis starts from existing theories about community citizenship, the first part of the research is deductive (Bryman, 2012). But because it is investigated how the wormhotel is related to community citizenship, the second part of the research is inductive.

3.4 Research design

The research design for this thesis is a single case study design (Bryman, 2012) as this thesis only focuses on the influence of wormhotels in Amsterdam's neighbourhoods. In this way, deeper insights into the influence of a wormhotel on the neighbourhood level is gained. It allowed to thoroughly investigate the variables of the theory of community citizenship by analysing different perspectives. Amsterdam is chosen as a critical case study (Yin, 2008) as this is where the initiative of wormhotels is originated. And as there are currently at least hundred wormhotels located in Amsterdam, the influence of the wormhotels has already taken place which made it possible to investigate evidence. Additionally, it is an embedded research as it is conducted on multiple units of analysis (Yin, 2008). Namely, the various Amsterdam neighbourhoods function as the sub-units which are all analysed separately and contribute to the general conclusion about the wormhotels in Amsterdam.

3.5 Methods and data

For this qualitative research thesis, interviews and participant observations are used as methods of data collection.

3.5.1 Interviews

Interviewing has the advantage that in-depth questions can be asked about experiences in the present and the past with the wormhotels. Besides, respondents were asked about experiences and motivations that have not been recorded in written text, which means that interviewing was the only way to retrieve this data. The interviews were semi-structured because a fixed number of topics were discussed but the interviewees also had the space to tell their own story. The interview guides are based on the operationalization (Appendix E to H) and exists of open questions, which had the advantage that the interviewee could respond in their own terms, no suggestive questions were asked and unknown topics for the research came to light (Bryman, 2012).

(15)

15

Experts

First of all, an interview is conducted with the initiator and owner of the Buurtcompost company; Peter-Jan Brouwer. By interviewing the initiator, the underlying reasons for setting up wormhotels in Amsterdam are discovered and why his company states that it has a positive influence on social cohesion. In addition, an interview is conducted with a wormhotel supervisor; Toos Tuin. She is present at activities around wormhotels in Amsterdam neighbourhoods and is therefore asked about her experiences during activities. Both of these people are important because they are in close contact with the neighbourhood and therefore have a general idea of how the process works in all neighbourhoods, this may lead to a better understanding of what drives the residents to participate.

Hoteliers

Insight is gained in various Amsterdam neighbourhoods by interviewing four coordinators of wormhotels, which are called ‘hoteliers’. They have applied for the wormhotel and organize the registrations and activities for the wormhotel in their neighbourhood. Figure 2 shows which hoteliers are interviewed in their neighbourhood: Jacob Catskade (De Wittenbuurt Zuid), Magalhaensplein (Balboaplein e.o.), IJsbaanpad (IJsbaanpad e.o.), and Sarphatipark (Sarphatiparkbuurt), all wormhotels have been placed in the year 2017. By interviewing the hoteliers, insight is gained into the social influence in various Amsterdam neighbourhoods without interviewing all participants.

Participants

One case study is chosen to conduct in-depth interviews with participants; the Magalhaensplein, located in the neighbourhood Balboaplein e.o. (Figure 2). This casus has been chosen because the implementation of the project has already taken place, as the wormhotel has been opened on 25th

November 2017. This offered the possibility to investigate the ongoing participation of members of the project and analyse whether the experiences, incentives and opinions of the participants of the wormhotel has changed in time. In total, there have been conducted four in-depts interviews with participants and two interviews with former participants.

Non-participating residents

Finally, seventeen non-participants are briefly interviewed with the questions as why they do not participate in the wormhotel and what they think of the presence of a wormhotel in their neighbourhood. In this way it was determined to what extent a wormhotel can be a form of conditional membership as mentioned in the theoretical framework.

3.5.2 Participant observation

Because the wormhotel process is currently taking place in Amsterdam's neighbourhoods, it was important to experience this process through participant observation in three neighbourhoods (Figure 2). The use of two different methods in one research method is called triangulation and is a technique to increase the credibility of a research (Bryman, 2012). In this way it is possible to check whether the data obtained through one research method is contradictory or similar to data of another method. First of all, during the research period regular observations were made at the wormhotel on the Nachtwachtlaan (Rembrandtpark Zuid). Besides, it is experienced how an opening of a wormhotel took place in the Curaçaostraat (Postjeskade e.o). This is interesting because the wormhotel has only recently been placed in the street and there were no participants yet. Finally, at the Harmoniehof (Harmoniehofbuurt) a harvest festival2_{was experienced. Moreover, this was the first time that a}

harvest festival took place in this neighbourhood without a supervisor from Buurtcompost. The researcher played the role of a local resident and actively participated with the other residents. Afterwards, short conversations were started with other residents and they were asked their motivation to participate.

(16)

16 Figure 2. Map of the neighbourhoods in Amsterdam in which qualitative research has been conducted (case study, interviews hoteliers, participant observation and observation).

(17)

17

3.5.3 Population and sampling

Respondents were approached in different ways for the request to conduct an interview. While the experts were contacted via their contact details on the website, it is important for the other group of respondents to be randomly selected in order to maintain the validity of the research.

Hoteliers were contacted through an internal e-mail via Peter-Jan. In addition, some were directly e-mailed by sending an e-mail to their public e-mail address on the municipal website for wormhotel information.

As the names of the participating residents at the Magalhaensplein are not public information, the hotelier was asked to inform the participants about the research and ask them if they were willing to give an interview by sending an E-mail and chat in the WhatsApp group chat. In this way there was no infringement on the privacy of the participants

A week before the interviews with non-participating residents at the Magalhaensplein, residents were informed of the research by means of a letter in which times were indicated when the researcher visited (Appendix D). At these indicated times, residents were asked if they wanted to answer a few short questions.

Magalhaensplein

In order to research the social impact of a wormhotel, a case study is chosen in which the hotelier, participants and non-participants were interviewed. Before the analysis is performed, a description of the population of the Magalhaensplein is given. Magalhaensplein is a square located in the neighbourhood of ‘Balboaplein’ in Amsterdam-West. Appendix B provides an overview of data with the most important population characteristics of this neighbourhood. In total there are 3119 inhabitants spread over 1663 homes with an average property value of €4911/m² in 2018 (OIS, 2018d). These are mainly private rental properties, followed by corporation rental and then property ownership (Table 2D). Compared to the entire Amsterdam population, this neighbourhood has a comparable young population (Table 2A). The largest group is single, followed by married with children and then unmarried with children (Table 2C). The percentage of residents with a non-Western background is 41.4% which is slightly higher than the 35.83% of the entire Amsterdam population (OIS, 2018e) (Table 2B).

3.5.4 Data processing

All interviews were recorded with the consent of the respondents, this allowed the interviewer to listen carefully without being distracted of taking notes. Besides, it makes it possible to transcribe the interviews by using ‘Express Scribe transcription software’. With the aid of the program Atlas.ti, the transcribed interviews were analysed through coding. The codes have been analysed thematically, which refers to merging specific codes into themes that tie with the operationalization (Bryman, 2012).

3.6 Practical and ethical challenges

Respondents are properly informed about the purpose of the interview and the request for recording of the interview by both asking permission before and during the recording. In addition, the collected data is handled with care and the respondents are given the option of anonymity to guarantee their privacy (KNAW, 2003). The ethical challenge of 'interviewer variability' (Bryman, 2012) is avoided by using open questions and by a focus on the purpose of the interview. Besides, the interviewer tried to minimize expressing their own vision, either verbally or through body language by choosing and using the correct phraseology consistently throughout the interviews (Roos & Vos, 2005). Likewise, a familiar environment has been chosen to conduct the interviews in order to guarantee the ecological validity of the research (Bryman, 2012). The biggest practical challenge was reaching and gaining the participants of the wormhotel on Magalhaensplein because their contact details were not available due to privacy protection. However, by starting on time with recruiting and good communication with the hotelier, enough respondents were found.

(18)

18

4 Background information

Before the collected data is analysed, it is important that a clear picture is sketched of the emergence, the process, the reasons behind the social impact statement and future implications of the wormhotels in Amsterdam. This chapter is based on the interviews with the founder of the company behind the wormhotels; Peter-Jan Brouwer, supervisor Toos Tuin and the website3_{of Buurtcompost.}

The beginning

The wormhotels in Amsterdam are an initiative of the company Buurtcompost, of which Peter-Jan Brouwer is the owner. After experiencing discomfort with his own wormhotel on his balcony, he requested a civil servant from the municipality to place a wormhotel on the street. After approval, the initiative was subsidized and five households started to participate in the experiment. An unexpected side effect was that as a result of the wormhotel in the street, local residents got to know each other better and the neighbourhood became more liveable according to Peter-Jan. This motivated him to contact the municipality of Amsterdam to further expand this concept. However, this official did not believe that the Amsterdam citizen would participate and rejected the plan. Peter-Jan nevertheless continued to work further on the wormhotels from bottom-up and started the company Buurtcompost. In the meantime the wormhotels have spread over the Netherlands and nearly hundred have already been placed. It is even stated on the website that approximately two a week are placed in Amsterdam.

Figure 3. The sign that is placed on the wormhotel. It explains residents the concept of a wormhotel but it also tells participants what can and cannot be thrown into the hotel4

(source: https://wormenhotel.nl ). 3_{https://wormenhotel.nl}

4_{Sign translated}_{: ‘}_{Here live a thousand worms that live in the peels of our fruits and vegetables. They also like to eat leaves,}

coffee grounds and tea bags, they enjoy paper and wet cardboard, straw or thin twigs. The worms cannot stand cooked food, sauce or oil, nor do we feed bread, pastries, meat or pasta. Of course they also do not eat (bio) plastic or bulky garden waste. If we take good care of them, fertile compost is created that we sprinkle on our plants, on the balcony and in the garden. More flowers, bees, happy people and fun. We close the cycle in the neighbourhood. Nice, right? Everyone happy!’

(19)

19

How it works

As was briefly mentioned in the introduction, a wormhotel is a local way of separating organic waste. It is a tower on the street where local residents throw in their vegetables, fruit and food residues that are composted with the help of worms, which leads to a valuable soil improver. Yet, not all organic waste can be digested by the wormhotel (Figure 3). Approximately twenty households can participate in the wormhotel to ensure that the composting process runs smoothly. The wormhotel has a striking design that according to Peter-Jan is circularly produced in a social workplace without any residual material, which is in line with the aim for a circular economy by the municipality of Amsterdam.

A resident can submit a request to the municipality of Amsterdam for the placement of a wormhotel in their district. For the request, the applicant must have collected at least four signatures from fellow residents who support the initiative. Peter-Jan stated that this threshold has been adopted to ensure that the project does not fail as several residents support the application. The applicant for the wormhotel is the hotelier, who voluntarily maintains the organization of the wormhotel. When the application is final, the hotelier hands out flyers in the neighbourhood to inform all local residents about the opening and the possibility to participate. In many cases the hotelier approaches known local residents in order to recruit enough participants for the wormhotel. At both the opening of the wormhotel and the first harvest festival a supervisor of Buurtcompost is present to support the hotelier. During the harvest festival, the bottom of the wormhotel is opened and participants scoop out the compost (Figure 4). Subsequently, the participants can take compost home for their own use or provide the municipal gardens with compost. Although the hotelier can always contact Buurtcompost with any questions, all participants are told that they are responsible for the wormhotel and the hotelier for managing.

Figure 4. A wormhotel on the Magalh aensplein (left) and an example of compost that can be harvested twice a year from the wormhotel (right).

(20)

20

Social impact

Due to the positive social influence of the wormhotel that Peter-Jan experienced in his neighbourhood, did the concept further expand in Amsterdam. This also appears from the website of Buurtcompost. For example, it says that the wormhotel does not only provide valuable soil improvers, it also makes the neighbourhood more fun and pleasant. In addition, the wormhotel is framed by them as a positive situation for everyone, as evidenced by the following quote on the website: 'Everyone wins at a

wormhotel; the people in the neighbourhood who become more fun, the municipality that has to process less residual waste, the animals and plants that receive better food and of course the worms that are spoiled all year round in a nice hotel!'. On the website it is explained that there is no sign on

the wormhotel during the first few weeks after placement of the wormhotel. In this way, the company wants to awaken a dialogue between residents to find out what the object means. On their websites there are examples of different dialogues that have taken place on social media, which shows that some residents think that it is a pizza oven or beehive. Secondly, the interview with Toos Tuin showed that she actively encourages hoteliers to turn the harvest festivals into a party for the neighbourhood with food and drinks. So, in addition to their own experiences that a wormhotel has a positive social influence on the neighbourhood, they also apply techniques to achieve this. In addition to the environmental impact and the social impact, raising awareness about recycling is a third goal that the wormhotel can accomplish as the literature has already shown that a local initiative can increase awareness among citizens on waste management (Righi et al., 2013; Church & Elster, in Seyfang & Smith, 2007) and can function as education for the youth (Ghose & Pettygrove, 2014).

Future

Due to the large interest in the wormhotels, applications for a wormhotel in Amsterdam in 2019 are no longer possible. Therefore, Jan sees a colourful future for composting worms in cities. Peter-Jan stated that the company learns a lot from the problems that participants encounter. As a result, the design is adapted and version 4.0 is currently being used.

The municipality of Amsterdam also sees this interest of their residents and has asked Buurtcompost whether it is possible to scale up the hotels. One of these ways is the underground container with which an experiment has been going on in Amsterdam East for two years. The big advantage of this is that it can process the organic waste from hundred households, that it only has to be emptied once a year and that it lasts a long time. This is therefore seen as the model for the future.

In addition, a study is currently being conducted by the municipality and Buurtcompost in which the benefits of processing organic waste through a wormhotel is being calculated. However, this research is still under development and results cannot yet be included in this research as the municipality of Amsterdam did not want to respond to the request for information about the study.

(21)

21

5 Analysis

In this chapter, the collected data from the four hoteliers, six participants and seventeen non-participating residents is analysed in order to answer the sub-questions, which allows to analyse how wormhotels in Amsterdam relate to community citizenship. This chapter is classified based on the indicators that follow from the theoretical framework; shared values, identity, social networks and social control. First, the hoteliers and the participant observations are analysed. Secondly, the data of the respondents of the Magalhaensplein case study are examined. The respondents are all named anonymously in this study (for a detailed overview see Appendix C) and their quotes from the interviews have been translated.

5.1 Hoteliers

This section is a representation of the data obtained through interviews with hoteliers from four different neighbourhoods with a wormhotel and participant observations in two neighbourhoods. It is important to analyse this data separately of the data from participants of Magalhaensplein because in this way the differences in social impact between neighbourhoods can be analysed. In addition, it is interesting to compare the perspective of hoteliers and participants. This section focuses on the indicators shared values and social networks because a location-specific analysis cannot be made as only interviews have been conducted with the hoteliers in these neighbourhoods.

5.1.1 Shared values

Incentives and objectives

First of all, it is interesting to find out what the reasons have been for hoteliers to apply for a wormhotel in their neighbourhood. The interviews show that the motivation for all hoteliers is the same, namely that they all see an added value in their organic waste. Characteristic for all the hoteliers is that they already have experience with composting as three hoteliers went to investigate it themselves and built a wormhotel on their balcony while others had a compost heap in the past. However, the hoteliers saw the benefits of a large wormhotel on the street and therefore submitted a request for a wormhotel. This is comparable to the story of how the initiator of Buurtcompost started.

Because the hoteliers see an added value in organic waste, they all criticize the municipality of Amsterdam for not recycling organic waste. For many, this is their personal motivation to collect it independently, this appears from the following quote:

“Well, my approach was of course that I had already started a small hotel on the balcony because I think it's really ridiculous that you can't do that in Amsterdam. We have so much waste that we can recycle that

we don’t do anything with. It is precisely this waste that is so easy to recycle. No chemical or industrial process needs to be involved. You can arrange it yourself very quickly. So that is my personal motivation, I just wanted

to get rid of my waste.”(Hotelier 1)

Although the hoteliers are in favour of the wormhotel, they prefer a regular organic waste system. They often make a comparison with other municipalities where residents have their own organic waste container that is emptied weekly. The hoteliers also see their request for the wormhotel as a way to contribute to a better world. They feel that action needs to be taken in society and thereby identify themselves as an initiator for a better world. But also to show others that an initiative such as the wormhotel works and that it does not cause any inconvenience. But despite their motivation, they state that the environmental impact of the wormhotel is most likely zero. In addition, the arrival of the wormhotel is also a way for hoteliers to be able to share their own experiment on a large scale with their neighbours and thereby also share an interest with each other:

“I'm not the only one who likes this, I can really share this with people from the neighbourhood. That was a fantastic moment.”(Hotelier 1).

(22)

22 The phenomenon that the wormhotel would lead to more social connection in the neighbourhood was not for any hotelier the direct motivation for the request of the hotel. However, the story of the increase in social cohesion by the initiator Buurtcompost was familiar to all hoteliers. That is why some hoteliers had an idea about connecting their neighbourhood. For example, one hotelier had the underlying plan to involve the other side of the street. And many hoteliers call the wormhotel a way to increase awareness, for example:

“And I think that now the wormhotels are more just an awareness for people. This is important. People are aware of what they throw away and what they have in waste.”

(Hotelier 4)

In general, it can be stated that the hoteliers do not see the social connection as the initial goal of the wormhotel but as a means or consequence.

Codes of behaviour

During the interviews, hoteliers were asked about their vision of a good neighbour. This showed that they all think that the city of Amsterdam offers the possibility of anonymity, but that this does not mean that residents should not take their own responsibility. They all feel that a good neighbour does not cause any mess and helps to clean up, does not cause nuisance and takes part in shaping the neighbourhood. All hoteliers found themselves meeting their own criteria of a good local resident. However, the hoteliers do not agree that participating in a wormhotel would make someone a better neighbour. By contrast, there was one hotelier who found herself a better neighbour by managing the wormhotel:

"Since I started working on the wormhotel I have found myself a good local resident. I am a social, involved and responsible neighbourhood resident." (Hotelier 1)

Practices

During the interviews with employees of Buurtcompost, it was mentioned that hoteliers often play an organizational role in their neighbourhood. According to the interviews, this statement can be confirmed. All hoteliers have been involved in neighbourhood activities in the past or are currently involved. In the neighbourhood IJsbaanpad, the community is very strong as there is an active advocacy association and many neighbourhood initiatives such as a fruit garden. Therefore, the hoteliers were already involved in this social network before the wormhotel was placed. The same applies for the hotelier on the Jacob Catskade, where a neighbourhood dinner is organised. The hotelier on the Magalhaensplein is the initiator of many activities that are organized in the neighbourhood. Finally, the hotelier near the Sarphatipark is actively involved in the local advocacy association due to the great nuisance of the hospitality industry. However, this is the only neighbourhood where the hotelier indicated to see more contact among local residents while in all other neighbourhoods, the hoteliers were satisfied with the amount of contact that the residents have with each other. In general, this means that hoteliers play an active role in their neighbourhood, but also that the neighbourhoods in which a wormhotel is applied for are usually neighbourhoods with an existing social network.

5.1.2 Social networks

Social interaction within the wormhotel community

From the questions regarding to the change in social network, it appears that hoteliers experience an increase in the number of contacts in the neighbourhood after the arrival of the wormhotel. By recruiting households, communicating with the participants and the harvest festivals, the hotelier has gained more contacts in the neighbourhood and therefore sees an increase in their social network. However, one hotelier clearly mentions that she thinks this does not account for the participants:

(23)

23 “But I think it is an unexpected large by-catch that it has resulted in so much social

cohesion. That I got to know people I did not know at all before, so that brought me personally. And I think it's not so much for the people who participate. When we harvest,

we only do it two or three times a year. So I don't think they know each other better or anything. Not that. But that people do like it and are proud that we have it here."

(Hotelier 1)

The hoteliers also state that they make contact with passers-by when they empty their waste in the wormhotel and therefore call it a meeting place. Whether or not in the form of questions that passers-by ask or a known local resident who comes to chat. The hoteliers therefore see an added value in the design of the wormhotel as the striking shape makes it an eye-catcher in the street. Besides, the hoteliers experience the arrival of the wormhotel as something in common as residents get a connection with each other. For example, a hotelier stated that the arrival of the wormhotel led to the involvement of single household residents in their neighbourhood. However, the hoteliers answered negatively to the question whether they experienced the wormhotel as a neighbourhood activity. Although it is part of the neighbourhood, they experience the activities around it as an activity for the participants.

The hotelier is also responsible for the communication with participants. In two of the four neighbourhoods, the hotelier keeps in contact with the participants by email. These e-mails are about problems with the wormhotel or the date of a harvest festival. This contact is mainly one-sided, the hotelier only converses with participants when they have a question or comment regarding to the wormhotel. In this form of communication, the participants have no mutual contact with each other. This is different in the other two neighbourhoods, where a WhatsApp group is used in which all participants of the wormhotel are added. The frequency of contact with this method of communication is much higher due to the ease of use and because participants can also communicate with each other.

Experiences wormhotel activities

During the interviews with experts it was indicated that the social impact of a wormhotel already starts with the opening. Local residents who only know each other by face meet and make contact for the first time. This was also apparent during the participant observation of an opening of a wormhotel at the Curaçaostraat. A group of fifteen neighbourhood residents gathered around the wormhotel and listened to the explanation of the wormhotel from the supervisor of Buurtcompost. Because the supervisor asked the attendees at which house number they lived, the residents discovered that they all live nearby each other. Besides the present residents who were informed by a flyer, many passers-by approached the opening. For example, a neighbour said:

"Hey, I have to go there when I saw you." (Local resident)

The extent to which participants actively participate during the harvest festival is highly dependent on the neighbourhood. In most neighbourhoods, the hotelier is leading in harvesting the compost while the participants take a passive role. Many hoteliers also experience a low turnout at the harvest festival. At the Harmoniehof it was observed that of the twenty participating households only six people were present. It was the hoteliers in particular who did the hard work of emptying the hotel. As this was the first harvest festival without a supervisor, it quickly became clear that the hotelier and the participants were searching for the best approach. For example, there was doubt whether the compost was actually ready for harvest and there was a concern about the number of worms that remained in the compost. During the harvest, the participants complained a lot about the smell of the compost, the degree of digestion and the quality of the wormhotel as planks had sagged. However, these observations are highly dependent on the neighbourhood. As for example the harvest festival at the Sarphatipark is experienced as successful by the hotelier:

(24)

24 “While it is nice when harvesting, because I thought gosh, I think I need to be doing all of

that by myself, but actually I was mainly providing coffee and tea and cutting the apple pie. There were about eight women and they were very fanatic. I said the worms must come out and they must go back. I explained it and laid a big sail. And they were really super fanatic! I also told them to bring their own bucket or bag, because I am not going to

take care of that. Everyone had arranged that nicely. It was a big success." (Hotelier 4)

The hoteliers are motivated by the supervisors of Buurtcompost to turn the harvest festival into a real party. During the interview with Toos Tuin however, she commented that this is highly dependent on the hotelier and that this does not happen in all neighbourhoods. However, all the interviewed hoteliers tried to make the harvest festival more than just harvesting the compost by bringing food or drinks. In some cases, the harvest festival was part of a neighbourhood activity where all residents were welcome, such as at Magalhaensplein where a BBQ is held after the harvest festival. During the harvest festival at the Harmoniehof, it was observed that the hotelier brought a bottle of wine with him and had a little toast after harvesting. However, this initiative came entirely from the hotelier and not all participants wanted to join.

Figure 5. Harvest festival at the Harmoniehof in Amsterdam -South. Emptying the wormhotel (left) and the harvested compost (right ).

Although the hoteliers do not see the wormhotel as a neighbourhood activity but an activity for the participants, in some neighbourhoods the rest of the neighbourhood is involved. For example, the compost that is harvested at the Jacob Catskade is also shared with non-participating residents with a garden. However, it did not occur that non-participating local residents also participated in the harvest festival, which was however expected by the experts of Buurtcompost. All hoteliers indicated that there was a lot of interest from local residents during the harvest and that many questions were asked about the wormhotel. During the harvest festival at the Harmoniehof, it was experienced that a harvest festival attracts a lot of attention from passers-by because they are curious about what's going on. However, this contact does not go beyond a few questions about the wormhotel and

Invasion of the worms : wormhotels as spaces of community citizenship