Greening districts through small-scale initiatives : a livelihood strategy to create new spaces of environmental justice in Lima, Peru

(1)

Greening Districts through

Small-Scale Initiatives

A Livelihood Strategy to Create New Spaces

of Environmental Justice in Lima, Peru

Ángela Herrera Molina

MSc Thesis - February 2014 International Development Studies

(2)

Greening Districts through Small-Scale Initiatives

A Livelihood Strategy to Create New Spaces of Environmental

Justice in Lima, Peru

MSc Thesis

International Development Studies

February 2014

Ángela Herrera Molina

10638040 angela.herrera3@gmail.com

Supervisor: Viviana d’Auria Second Reader: Michaela Hordijk Graduate School of Social Sciences

UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM Date of Submision: 16th January 2014

(3)

To my Dad,

(4)

I

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Sustainable Livelihoods Framework ... 4

Figure 2. Lima’s evolution in the 20th century ... 6

Figure 3. Green areas by Lima-province zones. Year 2011 ... 7

Figure 4. Types of goods ...11

Figure 5. Livelihood Assets Pentagon within Sustainable Livelihood Approach ....14

Figure 6. Conceptual Scheme ...17

Figure 7. Districts of the Municipality of Lima. Research Locations ...19

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1. Small-Scale Greening Initiatives in Ricardo Palma and Uranmarca - San Juan de Miraflores ...31

Map 2. Small-Scale Greening Initiatives in Trébol Azul and Heroes - San Juan de Miraflores ...32

Map 3. Small-Scale Greening Initiatives in Sector II (a) - Villa El Salvador ...32

Map 4. Small-Scale Greening Initiatives in Sector II (b) - Villa El Salvador ...34

(7)

IV

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CUAVES Comunidad Urbana Autogestionaria Villa El Salvador SEDAPAL Servicio de Agua Potable y Alcantarillado de Lima SERPAR Servicio de Parques de Lima

SINAMOS Sistema Nacional de Apoyo a la Movilización Social SJM San Juan de Miraflores

VES Villa El Salvador

(8)

V

GLOSSARY

Agenda Ambiental Environmental Metropolitan Agenda

Metropolitana

Asambleas generales Community assembly

Asentamiento (humano) Low-income settlement

Asociación (de viviendas) Housing association

Barriada Low-income neighbourhood, generally peripheral

Cooperativas Housing cooperatives

Cuadra Distance between a block corners in an urban area.

Directiva Community leadership

Fumones Marihuana smoker

Grupo Group of blocks or manzanas

Junta vecinal Neighbourhood board

Manzana Block of houses

Módulo básico Basic housing module

Parque Park

Parrilladas Barbecues

Polladas Chicken barbecues

Rateros Thieves

Selva Amazon region

Sierra Andean region

Serenazgo Squad of guards in the districts of Lima

(9)

VI

ABSTRACT

Urban green areas are commonly regarded as environmental amenities vis-à-vis quality of life, since such spaces promote health, social, economic and ecological benefits to city residents. Environmental Justice refers to the idea that all community groups, regardless of race and socioeconomic status, are entitled to equal distributions of environmental amenities. Unfortunately, socio-economically vulnerable communities tend to be under-served in terms of green areas. Solutions suggested by previous studies on Environmental Justice mostly rely on government interventions to increase the expanse of green space. In contrast, this study contributes to a further understanding of the opportunities of change that small-scale initiatives at the household and community level offer as a way of tackling environmental injustices. I mapped different small-scale greening initiatives undertaken in two disadvantaged districts in Lima, Peru, i.e. San Juan de Miraflores (SJM) and Villa El Salvador (VES); and four types were identified: private gardens, intermediate gardens, communal green areas and appropriated municipal green areas. Moreover, 15 and 17 semi-structured interviews were conducted in SJM and VES respectively, in order to comparatively examine what livelihood assets create and reproduce favourable conditions to undertake these small-scale greening initiatives, drawing on the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach. I find that there exist strong similarities between both districts in the way of developing and maintaining small-scale greening initiatives. First, the human capital does not differ very much from one district to the other. Second, even though VES has an advantage in terms of physical capital since its urban design has more land available for developing greening initiatives than SJM, not all the community groups have exploited this feature. Third, VES is characterised by its community self-management tradition; however, such social capital has lost strength over the years as the collective struggle has converted into a more individualistic approach of improving living conditions. In short, there is a growing convergence between small-scale greening initiatives in both districts.

Keywords:

Urban Green Areas

Small-Scale Greening Initiatives Livelihood Strategies

Livelihood Assets Environmental Justice Self-management

(10)

VII

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Viviana d’Auria, for her constant support and feedback throughout the research process, let alone her valuable guidance in the field. Without her assistance and insights once in Lima, the fieldwork would not have progressed as smoothly as it did. I have greatly enjoyed working together and living unique experiences in both San Juan de Miraflores and Villa El Salvador. I am also very grateful for all the moral support that my friends in Peru provided me. Catalina, Enrike, Susanna, Julio, Danny, Pieter and Moi, thanks for simply being there. Additionally, thank you to all my friends and family who kept encouraging me despite the distance and reminding me to make the most of this experience as a researcher. Furthermore, I express my gratitude to Dr. Michaela Hordijk, for agreeing to be my second reader of my thesis. Last but not least, I would like to thank with all my heart all participants in my research, especially all those residents who not only shared their time and experiences with me, but also their affection and life lessons. As I expressed to some of you, I hope to see you very soon.

(11)

1

1.

INTRODUCTION

By and large, urban green areas ‒e.g. public parks, community and private gardens as well as vegetation in the roadside of main avenues and smaller streets‒ are commonly regarded as environmental amenities vis-à-vis quality of life, since such spaces promote health, social, economic and ecological benefits to city residents. A wide range of academic disciplines have been studying these urban spaces and their implications on human well-being for decades. According to Maas

et al. (2006), the percentage of green space in people's living environment is

positively associated with the perceived general health of residents, which is partly due to three key mechanisms: stress reduction, physical activity and social cohesion (Groenewegen et al., 2012). Regarding the latter, the role of green areas is vital in developing and maintaining social ties as most of them provide a meeting place for the community (Boone et al., 2009). In fact, ‘most values attached to urban landscapes are non-commodity benefits’ such as habitat formation, recreation opportunities, relaxation potential and even aesthetic “health” (Tyrvainen & Vaananen, 1998; cited in Martin et al., 2004:356; Iverson & Cook, 2000).From this line of thinking, ‘green space seems to be more than just a luxury and consequently the development of green space should be allocated a more central position in spatial planning policy’ (Maas et al., 2006:591). Accordingly, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a minimum of 9m2_{of green area per inhabitant,}

being the optimum range 10-15m2_{per person}1_.

Regrettably, not all cities reach such expanse of green areas and the Peruvian capital, Lima, is an example. Due to the current high urbanisation levels and uneven city growth, urban vegetation areas are scarce in many parts of the city, compromising in turn the environmental quality to which Limenean population is exposed. This issue becomes even more problematic when taking into account two additional facts. First, two-thirds of the world’s population will be living in urban areas by 2030 (UN Populations Fund, 2007; cited in McConnahie, Shackleton & McGregor,2008:1), which may endanger environmental quality even further if green spaces are not totally integrated in urban planning. Second, green space is often unevenly distributed across different urban areas, meaning that some population groups remain excluded from the enjoyment of these environmental “goods” and their immediate benefits. As Woolley stresses,

‘To realise the full potential of these benefits, people need to be able to access and use them when and how they want. Not to be able to use such spaces in a way an individual would like to could be defined as social exclusion, following the argument of Burchardt, Le Grand and Piachaud’s (1999) that someone should be

(12)

2

geographically resident, want to participate in an activity and be prevented from doing so through no fault of their own.’

Woolley, 2003:5 Thus the under-provision of green areas and social exclusion turn out to be highly intertwined issues, becoming the foci of a growing body of literature on

Environmental Justice. Environmental Justice refers to the idea that ‘all people and

communities, regardless of their socio-demographic background, are entitled to equal distributions of environmental amenities, and no group should be disproportionately affected by environmental hazards’ (Bullard, 1996; Pellow, 2000; cited in Wen et al., 2013:S19). Unfortunately, the most socio-economically vulnerable communities tend to be under-served in terms of green areas whereas neighbourhoods consisting of affluent population groups have more access to these environmental “goods” (Wilson, 2009) ‒trends that can be clearly perceived in Lima. It is worth underlining though that environmental injustices are not only ‘an accident of unplanned growth’ (García & White, 2006; cited in García et al., 2009:8). Instead, they are partly result of the imbalanced distribution of power present in the decision-making processes that shape distributional patterns of green areas within a city, which unsurprisingly tend to favour urban elites (Heynen,2003; cited in Kitchen, 2012).

Although there exists an extensive body of literature researching environmental injustices, most of the suggested solutions for overcoming these issues solely rely on national and local government interventions, while little attention is paid to the capacity of change that small-scale actions offer to cope with the lack of green areas in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Generally, private individuals ‘are credited with little or no ability to solve collective problems among themselves, [being] a distorting view of some important economic and politic issues’ (Sugden 1986:3; cited in Ostrom, 2009:649). In fact, small-scale greening initiatives are increasingly deemed crucial strategies to improve the environmental quality in under-served urban areas and, in turn, the well-being of their residents. As a clarification, the notion of "small-scale” greening initiatives refers in this research to the idea of household- and community-led gardening activities, independently of property regime and size.

Moreover, building on Milbourne (2012:954), these household- and community-led activities have also ‘come to represent the spatial manifestation of transitions from injustice to justice as well as the empowerment of local community’. Nonetheless, relying on these small-scale actions for the provision of green areas may be problematic because it bases the development of these initiatives on the household’s purchasing ability and the disposal of other livelihood assets, which tend to be limited in the case of low-income neighbourhoods (Heynen, Perkins & Roy, 2006).

The main aim of this research is therefore to comparatively examine what livelihood assets create and reproduce favourable conditions to undertake and

(13)

3 maintain small-scale initiatives for greening the living environment, representing a way of coping with the disparities in the provision of green areas. The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach will be used as theoretical framework in order ‘to gain an accurate and realistic understanding of people’s strengths (assets or capital endowments) and how they endeavour to convert these into positive livelihood outcomes’ (DFID,1999, Section 2.3, para.1) in two different districts in Lima: San Juan de Miraflores (SJM) and Villa El Salvador (VES). From this line of reasoning, the major research question in this study is: What are the similarities and differences

between San Juan de Miraflores and Villa El Salvador in the Livelihood Assets that shape the undertaking of Small-Scale Initiatives for greening the living environment?

It is previously known that a critical difference between research locations is the robust self-management tradition that VES has, which may turn out to be a determining asset. This hypothesis will be the basis of a secondary objective of this research, which is to evaluate the role of having a self-management tradition ‒as a livelihood asset‒ in increasing the expanse of urban green spaces, in the absence of an even public provision of green areas in the city.

This study is structured in seven chapters. In Chapter 1, I introduce the background and relevance of urban green areas as well the research rationale behind this work. Chapter 2 discusses the theoretical framework that embraces this research, which primarily turns around the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach. Within this framework, three different sections can be distinguished. Firstly, a description of the Limenean Vulnerability Context caused by environmental injustices. Secondly, the Livelihood Strategies in the form of Small-Scale Greening Initiatives that are undertaken by the urban poor to improve environmental quality. In that section I also elaborate on the economic classification of goods in order to better understand the nature of such green spaces. Lastly, I present an explanation of the different Livelihood Assets that influence the development of such small-scale greening initiatives. Chapter 3 is the methodological chapter. In Chapter 4 I describe more in depth the diverse small-scale greening initiatives that I encountered in the two selected research locations, i.e. San Juan de Miraflores and Villa El Salvador. Chapter 5 presents differences as well as similarities between SJM and VES in the Livelihood Assets that shape the analysed small-scale greening initiatives. Chapter 6 concludes the thesis by summarizing the main findings and placing them into the literature. This last chapter will also include policy recommendations, limitations of the study as well as suggestions for future research.

With this research, my hope is to contribute to a further understanding of the opportunities of change that household- and community-led actions for greening the living environment offer as well as the barriers that encounter, when undertaken as a way of tackling environmental injustices and achieving a more equitable, sustainable and green city of Lima.

(14)

4

2.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

’A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base.’

Adapted from Chamber and Conway 1992; cited in Scoones, 2009:175 On the whole, the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach centres on the way people operating in vulnerability contexts escape their poverty condition. More specifically, this framework (see Figure 1) outlines that, within a vulnerability context, individuals have access to certain assets of different nature: human, natural, financial, social and physical. These assets can be combined to produce livelihood strategies, which are ‘open to people in pursuit of beneficial livelihood outcomes that meet their own livelihood objectives’ (DFID, 1999, Section 1.1, para.3).

Figure 1. Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Source: DFID guidance sheets, 1999 (http://www.ennonline.net/resources/667)

By virtue of its broad definition, the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach has been applied to a wide range of fields, e.g. fisheries, health, forestry, agriculture and urban development, among others (Scoones, 2009). The reason is that this framework ‘does not work in a linear manner and does not try to present a model of reality’ (DfID, 1999, Section 2.1, para. 5), being therefore very versatile. Hence, the major concepts of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach can be suitably used to guide the study of small-scale greening initiatives. The following sections accordingly review (i) the Vulnerability Context in Lima and the environmental injustices produced by

(15)

5 the uneven distribution of green areas, (ii) the Livelihood Strategies undertaken at small scale for greening the living environments and (iii) the Livelihood Assets that shape the development and maintenance of such small-scale greening initiatives.

2.1. Environmental Injustice as Vulnerability Context

‘The use of the term Vulnerability Context draws attention to the fact that this complex of influences is directly or indirectly responsible for many of the hardships faced by the poorest people in the world.’

DfID,1999, Section 2.2, para. 5 With respect to the research topic of interest, Lima is submerged in a context of vulnerability because of two fundamental reasons. First, water scarcity ‒ exacerbated by climate change effects‒ complicates the provision of environmental amenities such as urban green areas to the whole population. Second, these vulnerabilities are intensified in poor peripheral districts due to the existing environmental injustices that residents suffer, as they find themselves under-served in terms of green spaces in comparison to other more affluent areas in the city. These unfortunate environment conditions might have ‘notable implications on human health, social interactions, and connection to the landscape’ (Jennings, Gaither & Gragg, 2012:1).

As Hetterschijt (2004:10) highlights, ‘gardening on the Peruvian desert with an annual rainfall of 25 mm is a hard task’. Lima is known as the second largest desert-city in the world as well as the most water-stressed area2_{in the Latin American}

region, together with Mexico (Zegarra, 2014). Additionally, climate change is affecting the patterns of rainy seasons and, in turn, the water course of the three main rivers in Lima: Rímac, Chillón and Lurín, altering the ecological infrastructure of the city. This would not have such a resonance if there had existed a structured urban development plan which had guided the management and distribution of water resources. However, the Peruvian capital has undergone a rapid population growth during the last decades, which has resulted in an unplanned horizontal expansion towards the desert (see Figure 2) and complicated the development of an effective water provision system.

In Lima, low-income settlements or barriadas3_{emerge as a modality of} urbanisation, involving the construction of houses in invaded arid peripheral areas in the city, which are initially created under poverty conditions to eventually become relatively consolidated neighbourhoods. The core characteristic of this type of urbanisation, which covers nowadays the 60% of urban land in Lima, is its inherent ‘reverse’ planning process (Saez Giraldez et al., 2010). The barriadas

2_{Water stress occurs when the demand for water exceeds the available amount during a certain}

period or when poor quality restricts its use. Water stress causes deterioration of fresh water resources in terms of quantity and quality (European Environmental Agency, n.d.)

(16)

6 produce a growth from the house towards the city, since residents first populate the area and the conditioning of the space comes later by direct action on the occupied space. This dynamic moves away from the traditional descendent urbanisation, which plans the urban space from the large scale towards the small scale (Saez Giraldez et al., 2010). The positive side of such reverse urbanisation process is its flexibility, as neighbours are the ones who define their living environment4_and

directly interact with it. In fact, as Hordijk (2000:36) underlines, ‘improvements realised at the neighbourhood level form part of the consolidation process’. As city growth is shaped by small-scale actions, self-organisation is necessary in order to meet the existing population’s demands (Takano & Tokeshi, 2007). Consequently, the neighbourhood or district becomes a core of political organisation and, in turn, the centre of active participation (Takano & Tokeshi, 2007). As a drawback, public infrastructure such as water-supply services are constructed according to the needs of residents, without being planned in advance.

Figure 2. Lima’s evolution in the 20th century

Source: Saez Giraldez et al., 2010.

The deficiency of water accessibility in these peripheral districts thwarts the potential to develop and maintain vegetation areas such as private gardens and public parks. Furthermore, there exists the added problematic of an inadequate management of the scarce water resources on the part of local authorities. For instance, only the 17% of the residual water is treated5_{, being merely the 5% of this}

treated volume reused for irrigation purposes. This means that most residual water is currently underutilised and dumped into the Pacific Ocean, rivers or directly on the ground, which translates into missed opportunities for positive changes. Such inefficiency, consequently, leads to further inequity (Zegarra, 2014).

4_{The living environment is increasingly defined by environmental-justice activist as “the place you}

work, the place you live, the place you play.” (Di Chiro, 1996:301; cited in Heynen, Perkins & Roy, 2006:6)

(17)

7 Asides from the water issue, reserving large surfaces of land to construct green spaces such as public parks also becomes a complicated task, due to the abovementioned spontaneous growth that took place in peripheral districts. Namely, Groenewegen et al., (2012:997) stress that urban green space is increasingly coming under threat, especially ‘due to large-scale demands for housing and other services’.

As a result of all these events, Lima as a whole is under-served of green areas. According to the Observatorio Ambiental de Lima (n.d.-b), in 2011 the average green-area expanse that corresponds to each inhabitant in Lima was 3.52m2 _(see

Figure 3), number that speaks for itself when considering the abovementioned WHO

recommendations. As a clarifying point, the urban green areas taken into account by these figures are mainly the ones in the public domain6_{. Thus, it can be noticed how}

the public provision of green areas in the city of Lima is insufficient, undermining the beneficial opportunities that the access to such open spaces can provide to city residents (Gobster, Stewart & Bengston, 2004; Kuo & Sullivan, 2001; cited in Jennings, Gaither & Gragg, 2012).

Figure 3. Green areas by Lima-province zones. Year 2011

Zone m2 m2/inhabitant Lima Centre 10,148.214 5.39 Lima East 5,325.343 2.23 Lima North 7,424.867 3.19 Lima South 3,609.022 2.06 Lima Province 29,401.467 3.52

Source: Observatorio Ambiental de Lima (n.d.-b) [Online]

Additionally, the existing public green areas are not equally distributed across districts in Lima. To be precise, there are more than 120 parks and gardens in the affluent city centre, which are paradoxically watered by using the scarce potable water. Enormous urban inequalities in Lima are uncovered when one realises that Limenean rich districts are effortless connected to the public water-provision system and enjoy the access to a remarkable number of vegetated areas, whereas low-income districts find themselves under-served in terms of both green areas and

6_{As a clarification, in this measurement, it is considered as green area all the public parks, the SERPAR}

parks, the roadsides of the main avenues, and the independent parks of Las Leyendas and La Reserva (Source: Observatorio Ambiental de Lima (n.d.-a) [Online])

(18)

8 water provision. These exclusionary situations are commonly scrutinised through the lens of Environmental Justice.

As previously defined, Environmental Justice is based on the principle of ‘equal protection and meaningful involvement of all people with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies and the equitable distribution of environmental benefits.’ (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2002:2; cited in Agyeman & Evans, 2004:156). Nevertheless, previous Environmental Justice research has reported that disproportional distribution of environmental amenities across urban areas tends to be associated to socio-economic status and ethnicity (García et al., 2009). For instance, a study in South Africa reported that urban areas with lower income levels were associated with lower surface and quality of public green space (McConnahie, Shackleton & McGregor, 2008). The results of another study also expound that non-whites and Hispanics in the United States are significantly affected by uneven distribution of environmental amenities (Hird & Reese, 1998).

In any case, Young (1990; cited in Schlosberg, 2004) would claim that environmental injustices are not solely the outcome of an inequitable distribution of environmental “goods”, but also of various social and institutional relations. Research shows that the procedures that determine the distributive patterns of environmental benefits ‒ and needed to tackle environmental injustices‒ are not equitably accessible to different social groups, which generates the so-called procedural injustices (Kitchen, 2012; García et al., 2009; Boone et al., 2009; ESRC, 2001). As a consequence, low income communities continue to disproportionately suffer from disparities in access to green areas because decision-making processes remain favouring urban elites (García et al., 2009; ESRC, 2001; Boone et al., 2009). Important feedback can therefore be perceived between institutional processes and vulnerability contexts (DfID, 1999). From this line of reasoning, Shrader-Frechette (2007) claims two types of responsibility,

‘One claim is that because citizens have unfairly benefited from and therefore contributed to [Environmental Injustices], they bear ethical responsibility for helping to stop it. The second claim is that because citizens participate in nations and institutions whose policies and practices help cause [Environmental Injustices], they also have democratic responsibility to help stop it.’

Shrader-Frechette, 2007:109

As we have already seen, ‘natural settings have been associated with enhanced health and well-being in urban environments of the industrialized North’ (Davies et

al., 2008; Rosenzweig & Blackmar, 1992; Svendsen, cited in Jennings, Gaither &

Gragg, 2012:1). Nonetheless, it is worth noting that few studies have been carried out on urban green areas in the developing world. This might be misleading since lack of green areas represents one of the main urban environmental problems in Global South cities both at a neighbourhood and city level (Hordijk, 2000:17). While ‘urban areas in developing countries will accommodate nearly 90% of the projected

(19)

9 world population increase between 1995 and 2030’ (McConnahie, Shackleton & McGregor, 2008:1), urban political ecologists have argued that the city is the ‘place where socio-environmental problems are experienced most acutely’ (Heynen et al., 2006:2; cited in Milbourne, 2012:944) since urbanisation processes pose significant challenges to the provision and protection of natural vegetation areas. In this case, the transition of Lima towards a megacity has not been an exception. Only five districts7_{in the city were in 2011 within the range recommended by the WHO with}

regard to urban green areas (see Annex B.1): San Isidro (26.37 m2_{/inhab), Punta}

Hermosa (17.48 m2_{/inhab), Santa Rosa (16.60 m}2_{/inhab), Miraflores (14.86}

m2_{/inhab) and San Borja (12.11 m}2_{/inhab). In contrast, the districts with the lowest}

expanse of green areas per inhabitant were Villa María del Triunfo (0.43 m2_/inhab)

and Breña (0.47 m2_{/inhab). It can be perceived how these disparities are in some}

cases very large and strongly associated with the socio-economic status of the districts. For instance, the most served district in terms of public green areas, i.e. San Isidro, is one of the most affluent districts in the city whereas the most under-served one, i.e. Villa María del Triunfo, is a peripheral urban area with the highest number of poor people in absolute terms8_.

Such disproportional provision of public green areas across different districts in Lima translates into an environmental injustice concern as ‘lack of access to scarce environmental resources tend to affect the poorest and most vulnerable people hardest’ (ESRC, 2001:4). Therefore, the main challenge Lima faces nowadays is the achievement of a sustainable and equitable management of the limited water and vegetation resources. In 2012, the Ordinance 1628 was approved, constituting the basis for the Agenda Ambiental Metropolitana, whose main commitment is managing a more sustainable and environmentally-healthy city for all residents as well as preparing the city for its adaptation to the climate change (Municipalidad de Lima, n.d.). Nevertheless, it is necessary that such policies embed social equity goals into its agenda, as pathway to tackle the existing environmental injustices in the city.

2.2. Small-Scale Greening Initiatives as Livelihood Strategy

‘[…] livelihood strategies [is] the overarching term used to denote the range and combination of activities and choices that people make/undertake in order to achieve their livelihood goals.’

DfID, 1999, Section 2.5, para. 1

7_{The Metropolitan Area of Lima is politically and administratively divided in 42 districts and}

Cercado de Lima (Municipalidad de Lima, n.d.)

8_{Villa María del Triunfo is the district with the highest number of poor people, in absolute terms,}

where the 27.1% of the population is poor (approximately 103,375 individuals). Moreover, the 1.9% of the population is in extreme poverty (1,066 individuals) (Source: Censos XI de Población VI de Vivienda, 2007, INEI; cited in Observatorio Socio Económico Laboral Lima Sur (Sept 2009) [Online])

(20)

10 The even distribution of good-quality green areas is the solution for environmental injustices in urban areas. Most of literature considers that local- and national-level governments are the key agents for establishing appropriate environmental policies to tackle such inequalities. Nonetheless, as previously mentioned, procedural injustices are also present in urban development structures, translating into government interventions that tend to favour urban elites over more deprived groups (Boone et al., 2009). Some studies on common pool resources have challenged the assumption that important resources are better managed and protected by governments than local people, representing new theoretical efforts (Ostrom, 2009). Opportunities of change, therefore, appear to be dependent upon the agency of local communities, which directly relates to the key principle of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach of putting people at the centre of development (DfID, 1999).

Without losing perception of this approach, livelihood strategies are undertaken by disadvantaged communities to cope with vulnerability contexts and produce beneficial outcomes at the household and neighbourhood level, which will eventually have effects on the city as a whole. Everyday household- and community-led actions for greening living environments might be deemed the most direct and effective livelihood strategy for improving the environmental quality in disadvantaged neighbourhoods and, in turn, create ‘new socio-ecological spaces of justice within the city’ (Milbourne, 2012:944). As Doody et al. (2009:1385) stress, ‘residential gardens form a significant component of urban green space in many cities and therefore could play a role in redressing this problem.’ Studies support the idea that initiatives which involve local people are particularly welcomed as they can contribute to address local health-threatening environmental problems (Hordijk, 2000). It is considered that ‘there is a need to start where people are’ since small-scale initiatives ‘make a much more significant difference to people’s lives’ (Burningham & Thrush, 2003:519), especially because these livelihood strategies deal ‘with smaller scale, localised and everyday forms of injustice’, rather than with ‘those that tend to dominate within the mainstream environmental justice literature’ (Milbourne, 2012:954). In any case, building on Milbourne (2012:946), small-scale greening initiatives might ‘open up some potentially useful engagements with environmental justice and urban political ecology’.

Nonetheless, according to Lee (1994; cited in Hordijk, 2000), the scope of what household and community actions can achieve can be limited if they do not count with the support of or alliances with other actors. Moreover, some scholars such as Pudup (2008) suggest that private gardening initiatives ‘should be viewed less as acts of local resistance towards external processes of change and more as mechanisms that support “the existing social order by helping it accommodate crisis and change”’ (Pudup, 2008:1229; cited in Milbourne, 2012:946).

Besides the existence of strictly private and public gardens, small-scale greening initiatives tend to spill over ‘hybrid’ spaces that intersect the public and private spheres, also labelled as intermediate house-street spaces (Saez Giraldez et al.,

(21)

11 2010; Milbourne, 2012, Ward et al., 2014). While such hybrid spaces are ‘the public spaces that are most visible and used by individual households’ (Ward et al., 2014), it is also the origin of conflicts since rights and responsibilities over such space are greatly blurred. As Davy (2014:483) stresses, ‘we all use it, each of us can spoil it, and none of us owns it exclusively’. Thus, before continuing, it is imperative to define the nature of the different spaces where small-scale greening initiatives can be located in order to better understand the foundation of existing and potential conflicts. In the following sub-section, I use the economic theory that classifies goods to guide such analysis.

2.2.1. Classifying Urban Green Space: An Economic Perspective.

In this sub-section, I present the widely-known classification of goods on which the economic theory generally draws. Inasmuch as we treat urban green areas as a general good, such classification will allow us to further understand the different types of small-scale greening initiatives that will be presented later in this work.

Returning to the economic theory, two main characteristics are used to create classify goods: Subtractability and Excludability. Subtractability, also known as rivalry, refers to the extent to which the consumption of one good by one user reduces resource availability for other consumers (Ostrom et al., 1994; cited in Ostrom et al., 1999). While subtractability increases, the other dimension, i.e. excludability, becomes more important (Zegarra, 2014). Excludability ‘refers to the ease with which others can be kept from using the resource’ (Acheson, 2011, section 5, para.5). Depending on the degree of each dimension that a good exhibits, we can differentiate four types of goods: private goods, public goods, toll goods and common-pool resources (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Types of goods

Subtractability

Low High

Excludability Difficult Public goods Common-pool resources

Easy Toll goods Private goods

Source: Ostrom et al., 1994:7; cited in Acheson 2011

a) Private goods are subtractable, since the consumption by an individual limits the consumption by others; as well as excludable, because the owner can exclude others from using it.

b) Public goods are non-subtractable. Moreover, they ‘are characterized by difficulties of exclusion’, which can lead to collective conflicts since they ‘benefit everyone in the society whether they have paid for them or not’

(22)

12 (Acheson, 2011). As a consequence, ‘there is little incentive for an individual to invest in them’, leading to free-riding dilemmas (Acheson, 2011).

c) Toll goods: This type of good is also known as club goods. They are excludable, as it is usually required a membership to consume them, but non-subractable, as the ‘use by one person does not prevent another from enjoying the club and its amenities’ (Acheson, 2011).

d) Common-pool resources, which ‘share the attribute of subtractability with private goods and difficulty of exclusion with public goods’ (Ostrom & Ostrom, 1977; cited in Ostrom, 2009:645).

By and large, urban green space can be identify by one of these four categories. There exist private gardens as well as public parks. There also exist club gardens that require paying a fee for their use. Lastly, building on Jain & Moraglio (2014:541), parks can also be classified as common-pool resources since ‘every different use and every user makes demands on space and they also make efforts to occupy space – at least for a short time’.

Common-pool resources have been widely studied in relation to governance and environmental conservation issues, and play a relatively significant role in this study. Hardin (1968; cited in Ostrom, 2009) portrayed the so-called ‘tragedy of the commons’, the result of a game-theory dilemma that ends up in the ‘overuse without concern for the negative effects on others’ (Ostrom et al., 1999:279) and the consequent destruction of common resources due to lack of cooperation among self-interested and ecologically myopic users (Ostrom 1990; cited in Vasstrøm, 2014). As users are trapped in a situation they cannot change, external authorities must impose solutions. However, this theory has been rejected by a great deal of scholars such as Ostrom, who defend the idea that individuals are able to communicate, create norms and promote trust in such a way that the dilemma is overcome. As Ostrom (2009) points out,

‘It is not only that individuals adopt norms but also that the structure of the situation generates sufficient information about the likely behaviour of others to be trustworthy reciprocators who will bear their share of the costs of overcoming a dilemma. Thus, in some contexts, one can move beyond the presumption that rational individuals are helpless in overcoming social dilemma situations.’

Ostrom, 2009:661

In any case, both perspectives have been empirically supported. Whereas tragedies have occurred in some cases of small-scale greening initiatives undertaken in common spaces due to lack of cooperation, in others cases a self-organised management of common-pool resources has been fluently carried out by participants, overcoming the dilemma (McCay and Acheson, 1987; Wade, 1994; Feeny, et al., 1990; cited in Ostrom et al., 1999).

Another controversial topic has to do with the property regime associated to each good. Acheson (2011) exposes that ‘until recently there has been a tendency to

(23)

13 associate one type of good with one type of property’. Private goods were typically linked to private property regimes, in which owners have all rights and responsibilities over them and, therefore, exert the level of excludability that they prefer. In contrast, public goods were held under public-property regime and the government was the responsible for providing them (Acheson, 2011). With regard to common-pool resources, the association has not been that straightforward. ‘Empirical studies show that no single type of property regime works efficiently, fairly, and sustainably in relation to all CPRs’ (Ostrom et al., 1999:279). Indeed, Broomley (1986) considers that common resources can be ‘owned and managed as government property, private property, community property, or owned by no one’ (cited in Ostrom, 2009:650). This may have direct implications on the governance of small-scale greening initiatives, especially those which are located in communal spaces, since the vague definition of property regimes may generate conflicts between users. In fact, Davy (2014:473) emphasises that ‘no single kind of property rules fits the purposes of all types of land uses’, suggesting that every land use requires its own kind of property rules.

To sum up, the abovementioned four categories will be taken into account when presenting the small-scale greening initiatives later in this work in order to complement their description and further understand their nature as well as the foundation of existing conflicts.

2.3. The Livelihoods Assets Pentagon

Livelihoods strategies such as small-scale greening initiatives are the result of the combination of the livelihood assets available in each household. Hence, the undertaking and sustainment of greening activities may vary with the household’s assets, i.e. human, natural, social, physical and financial capital. As DfID (1999, Section 2.5) outlines, ‘the more choice and flexibility that people have in their livelihood strategies, the greater their ability to withstand – or adapt to- the shocks and stresses of the vulnerability context’. This is problematic as the poor urban residents in disadvantaged neighbourhoods often lack the resources to develop and maintain small-scale gardening initiatives (Heynen, Perkins & Roy, 2006). Thus, understanding the livelihood assets that shape small-scale greening initiatives is crucial if green areas are to be evenly distributed across different urban areas and institutional procedures are failing in providing equal access to such environmental amenities.

The Livelihoods Assets Pentagon ‘lies at the core of the livelihoods framework, within the vulnerability context’ (DFID, 1999, Section 2.3, para.2). The assets pentagon (see Figure 5) represents the strengths and weaknesses in terms of assets or capital endowments that different communities or households within communities have and combine to produce livelihood strategies with the aim of achieving livelihood goals. Different livelihood strategies require different types of

(24)

14 assets. Thus, the more assets a household has, the more livelihood strategies it is able to carry out, as the Livelihood Framework Guidance Sheets underline,

‘[…] the general principle is that those who are amply endowed with assets are more likely to be able to make positive livelihood choices. That is, they will be choosing from a range of options in order to maximise their achievement of positive livelihood outcomes, rather than being forced into any given strategy because it is their only option’

DfID, 1999, Section 2.5, para.7 From this line of reasoning, livelihood assets become a crucial element as they determine the potential of small-scale greening initiatives to improve the environmental quality in a certain area. The following sections further describe the main characteristics of the five capitals that form the Livelihood Assets Pentagon (see Figure 5).

Figure 5. Livelihood Assets Pentagon within Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

Source: DFID Guidance Sheets, 1999 [Online]

2.3.1. Human Capital

Human capital is associated with the amount and quality of labour available, which is highly dependent on education, training, skills and health status (DfID, 1999). Human capital is considered a crucial asset as it enables people to make use of any of the other types of assets. Thus, it is ‘necessary, though not on its own sufficient, for the achievement of positive livelihood outcomes’ (DfID, 1999, Section 2.3.1, para.3). As Schwartz (2006, cited in Doody et al., 2010:1396) claims, ‘education is essential to creating public awareness and support’. However, it is important that such knowledge and skills are relevant to the undertaken livelihood strategy as well as complemented by existing local knowledge (DfID, 1999)

(25)

15

2.3.2. Social Capital

In general, the social assets that community use to develop livelihood strategies encompass networks and formalised groups, as well as relationships of trust, reciprocity and exchanges (DfID, 1999). This capital is important in the sense that it facilitates cooperation as well as the management of common resources and shared infrastructure (DfID, 1999).

A robust connectedness between individuals with shared interests may also be a determining social asset for collectively undertaking livelihood strategies. Building on Middlemiss (2011:278), residents who share a ‘range of sustainable lifestyle histories’ and have a common environmental culture might be more willing to undertake small-scale greening initiatives and, in turn, benefit from a more environmentally just district. Moreover, when these individuals regularly work in small to relatively large teams, it is more likely to that they adopt norms and trust each other more than when working alone, reinforcing their shared interests (Leibbrandt, Gneezy & List, 2010; cited in Ostrom, 2009). When these groups effectively manage resources, successful livelihood strategies can be attained (Ostrom et al., 1999).

Similarly, the community capacity of performing self-organisation and the existence of community-based organisations might be another key social asset in the process of improving the environmental conditions (Hordijk, 2000). However, ‘whether people are able to self-organize and manage CPRs also depends on the broader social setting within which they work’ (Ostrom et al., 1999:281). For instance, local governments can promote or hinder local self-management, factor that will be taken into account in our analysis.

2.3.3. Natural Capital

Natural capital refers to the natural resource ‘stocks from which resource flows and services (e.g. nutrient cycling, erosion protection) useful for livelihoods are derived’ (DfID, 1999, Section 2.3.3, para.1). These include ‘from intangible public goods such as the atmosphere and biodiversity to divisible assets used directly for production (trees, land, etc.)’ (DfID, 1999, Section 2.3.3, para.1). In some cases, the natural capital and the vulnerability context are remarkably related.

2.3.4. Physical capital

Physical capital consists of two key elements: basic infrastructure and producer goods. On the one hand, infrastructure ‘consist of changes to the physical environment that help people to meet their basic needs and to be more productive’, such as affordable transport, secure buildings or adequate water supply, being commonly public goods (DfID, 1999, Section 2.3.4, para.1). On the other hand, producer goods represent ‘the tools and equipment that people use to function more productively’, which are commonly privately owned (DfID, 1999, Section 2.3.4, para.1). This type of livelihood assets are crucial since poor infrastructure or lack of

(26)

16 producer goods constrain people’s productive capacity and undermine the potential of the other capitals. Nonetheless, due to its required initial investment coupled with maintenance costs, physical capital tends to be expensive and, therefore, less accessible to the poor. Moreover, connected to the above-mentioned procedural injustices, ‘richer groups use their strength and influence to control or monopolise access [to it]’ (DfID, 1999, Section 2.3.4, para.12).

2.3.5. Financial Capital

Financial capital includes the monetary resources with which people are enabled to undertake livelihood strategies to achieve positive outcomes. Yet, it is worth mentioning that beneficial livelihood outcomes ‒for instance, social justice or human rights‒ cannot always be realised through the use of money (DfID, 1999). The two main sources of financial capital are available stocks ‒such as savings and other resources provided by credit-providing institutions‒ and regular inflows of money ‒which comprise income, pensions, governmental transfers and remittances (DfID, 1999). Disadvantaged neighbourhoods nonetheless are characterised by the lack of such financial assets.

(27)

17

3.

METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research Questions

Sub-questions:

i. What type of small-scale initiatives are undertaken by residents in San Juan de Miraflores and Villa El Salvador to green their households’ living environment?

ii. What are the livelihoods assets endowments in each district and in what way are they used in the development and sustainment of small-scale greening initiatives?

iii. What is the role of having a self-management tradition as a livelihood asset?

3.2. Conceptual Scheme

Figure 6. Conceptual Scheme

What are the similarities and differences between San Juan de Miraflores and Villa El Salvador in the livelihood assets that shape the undertaking of

(28)

18 By focusing on the Livelihoods Assets Pentagon, without losing perception of the whole Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, I examine which capitals endowments (Livelihood Assets) create and reproduce favourable conditions to undertake small-scale greening initiatives (Livelihood Strategies) in two under-served districts to cope with the Vulnerability Context in Lima in such a way that the expanse of green areas increases and environmental justice is attained (Livelihood Outcomes).

3.3. Operationalization of Major Concepts

Two major concepts have been operationalised in the research design phase in order to conduct the research methods in a more accurate manner. First, the concept of Small-Scale Greening Initiatives has been subdivided in several dimensions in such a way that characteristics of the urban green spaces of interest can be measured through specific observations (see Annex A.1). The second concept that has been operationalised is the term Livelihood Assets. The selected dimensions, variables and indicators are based on the ‘Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets’ (DfID, 1999), more particularly on the five capitals that make up the Livelihood Assets Pentagon, which has been adjusted to greening livelihood strategies (see Annex A.2). It is important to say that only three out of five capitals have been studied during the fieldwork, after assessing their relevance. While conducting the research in the study sites, I came to the conclusion that the most significant livelihood assets at the moment of undertaking greening initiatives were the human capital, physical capital and social capital. The financial and natural capitals have not been analysed in depth as they do not represent a critical difference between districts. Nevertheless, some general aspects of these two overlooked capitals were mentioned during the interviews, complementing the other three.

3.4. Research Locations and Unit of Analysis

According to Katz (2001, cited in Tracy, 2013:220), ‘making predictions about “why” is greatly enhanced through the use of comparative data – the same event either at two different times or in two different places’. Accordingly, in exploring the livelihood assets that shape small-scale greening initiatives, a Qualitative Comparative Analysis has been conducted between two selected disadvantaged districts in Lima: San Juan de Miraflores (SJM) and Villa El Salvador (VES), which represent the units of analysis of this research and about which relevant data is gathered.

(29)

19 Figure 7. Districts of the Municipality of Lima. Research Locations

Source: Adapted from www.tierra-inca.com [Online]

3.4.1. San Juan de Miraflores

San Juan de Miraflores (SJM) is a district with a population of 400,630 inhabitants9_{. In 2011, SJM only had 2.40m}2_{of public green areas per inhabitant}

(Observatorio Ambiental Lima, n.d.-b). Although the urban development plans reserve a space for green areas, barely one third of of these areas are being used as a park (IMP 1998: III: 5.4.1; cited in Hordijk, 2000).

Pampas de San Juan is the sector in SJM I will fundamentally look at, especially because of its scarce expanse of public parks, its consolidation level and the fact that there exist in-house scholarship I can rely upon (see Horijk, 2000). Although the district of SJM has its origin in 1954, not was until 1979 when invasions started in what it would become the sector of Pampas de San Juan. Gradually, more invaders settled in this sandy and rocky area located in the south-east of the district. in form of cooperativas and asociaciones10_{, buying first a piece of land, as well as informal} settlements resulted from invasions called asentamientos humanos (Hordijk, 2000). Within this context, small-scale initiatives undertaken by the residents of this neighbourhood have become crucial for creating green areas and improving environmental quality. Indeed, most green spaces in this district area are created by the inhabitants themselves through both individual and collective actions. Yet, according to Michaela’s study (2000:221), the proportion of collectively-created parks is very little compared to the individual greening initiatives, which can be seen everywhere.

9_{Source: INEI (n.d) [Online]} 10_{See Glossary}

(30)

20 Within Pampas de San Juan, the neighbourhoods this research is centred on are the Asentamientos Trébol Azul, 13 de Octubre and Heroes, the Asociación Ricardo Palma and the Cooperativa Uranmarca, covering different legal status of settlement.

3.4.2. Villa El Salvador

Villa El Salvador (VES) is another district in Southern Lima under poverty conditions. Its population is of 454,114 residents11_{(in 2014), and merely has 2.94}

m2_{of public green areas per inhabitant (in 2011).}

VES is a result of a resettlement process in 1971, when a number of families that had invaded a certain area of SJM were violently evicted and reallocated after a negotiation process into the area that is currently known as Villa El Salvador. For the left wing military government, presided by Juan Velasco, this area was deemed a ‘model’ of planned barriada. Already in 1971, the first houses were built and the first markets and schools were founded. Its urban development in reticular blocks reserved a significant amount of open space available in a much larger quantity than other similar districts(see Annex D.1). Indeed, each housing block is laid out around a central space of communal property and management, which habitually includes community equipment and numerous green areas, although most of them have generally been produced by means of the collective and individual efforts of residents. A state organism called SINAMOS supervised the communal initiatives while the Velasco regime promoted a self-management model which contributed to affirm an identity and organisation around the idea of neighbourhood (Takano & Tokeshi, 2007:28) and mobilised the neighbourhood participation on behalf of the community (Amigos de Villa, n.d.). As a result, a strong social cohesion and a solid self-management performance were endorsed in the district since its origins. In 1973, it is created the community association that later would be called CUAVES, which took over the role of managing and executing the district budget and reinforced the self-organisation capacity of the residents under the principle of solidarity. In 1975, the overthrow of Velasco leads to a turn of the military government towards the right-wing, showing a repressive attitude towards the popular sectors. The lack of national support negatively affected CUAVES, which lost its main source of resources (Amigos de Villa, n.d.). Coupled with the fact that in 1983 the district municipality is created and starts a period of co-governance, the political power of CUAVES exponentially decreases. In 1987, VES received the Spanish Prince of Asturias Award of the Concord in recognition of its history and achievements.

Within the district of VES, a smaller study area had to be chosen. In this research, the study sites are two of the most consolidated sectors of the district, i.e. Sectors II and III, as well as the Urbanización Pachacamac. The latter is characterised by being

(31)

21 the result an urbanisation project that started in 1983 with the construction of a series of módulos básicos12_{, which were raffled among applicants.}

What is the rationale behind the research location selection?

- Differences in a particular variable of interest: The invasion history and urban development of the study sites remarkably differ. As it has already been mentioned, VES was a planned barriada and had a robust self-management tradition that SJM does not have, as well as the concept of ‘central park’ embedded in its urban planning of most of its sectors. This difference may be crucial in the undertaking of greening initiatives areas in each district.

- Similar characteristics with respect to other variables: The study areas within the two selected districts share similar socio-economic status, demographic characteristics, location within the city (see Figure 6), climate, consolidation level and are part of the same water provision grid. Moreover, both SJM and VES find themselves under-served in terms of public green areas and small-scale greening initiatives are frequently undertaken by residents.

3.5. Methods and Sampling Techniques

My aim was to conduct a Qualitative Comparative Analysis between two different districts in Lima: San Juan de Miraflores (SJM) and Villa El Salvador (VES). Qualitative Comparative Analysis is considered a methodology that bridges qualitative and quantitative analysis (Ragin, n.d). On the one hand, it requires in-depth knowledge of the cases studied which is commonly provided by qualitative methods. On the other hand, it ‘is capable of pinpointing decisive cross-case patterns, the usual domain of quantitative analysis’ (Ragin, n.d:3). In this case, Qualitative Comparative Analysis allows us to explore similarities and differences between SJM and VES in the endowment and use of livelihood assets that lead to undertaking small-scale greening initiatives. Accordingly, the data collection process drew on two different methods: participatory mapping and semi-structured interviews.

3.5.1. Participatory Mapping

The purpose of conducting a participatory mapping in this research was primarily to identify potential informants through the creation of maps that inform about the location of the small-scale greening initiatives undertaken in each district and their main characteristics. According to the theory, the mapping technique allows us to familiarise with the ‘spatial extent of our study area, helps form an

(32)

22 impression of its vitality, and suggests potential problems you may encounter later’ (Barker, 2006:133).

The set of small-scale greening initiatives on which the mapping process was centred encompasses the household- and community-led gardening initiatives encountered in the selected study sites which looked green and well-maintained, independently of property regime and size. As this research is interested in the factors that create favourable conditions to keep undertaking and sustaining greening activities, those green spaces who seemed abandoned and deteriorated were not taken into account since they would not bring such insight.

It is also worth mentioning that the mapping exercise was conducted by convenience, without planning to systematically map a concrete route nor every single garden within a set of streets. In the case of the mapping of private and intermediate gardens, it was carried out with barely any collaboration of residents as these spaces were very easy to identify because of their clear spatial demarcations (power meter, road, etc.). At the moment of mapping communal green areas and appropriated municipal green spaces, a more participatory mapping was carried out as residents and other key informants guided me around the study sites, helped me to differentiate community- and household-led initiatives from municipal green areas ‒which do not belong to the set of greening initiatives on which this research is focused-; and expounded relevant insight about the encountered small-scale greening activities with regards to their history, maintenance tasks and irrigation issues, among others.

The residents who participated in this method also introduced me to other neighbours committed to greening their living surroundings (i.e. snow-balling). By virtue of their local knowledge and community networks, I got to know a large part of the population of interest, from which a sample was selected for semi-structured interviews. Moreover, thanks to the direct interaction with residents, I was able to build rapport within the community, which became crucial for accessing future interviewees.

3.5.2. Semi-Structured Interviews

The main data this research aimed to collect are the different livelihood assets that households have and use in order to undertake and sustain greening activities in private inner gardens, intermediate house-street spaces and communal areas. However, this research is not only centred on the level of assets endowment itself but also in what way each district combines and takes advantage of the capital they have to develop such initiatives. According to the DfID (1990, Section 2.3, para.5), ‘at a generic level there is no suggestion that we can – or should – quantify all assets, let alone develop some kind of common currency that allows direct comparison between assets.’ Therefore, semi-structured interviews are an appropriate method to gather information about livelihood assets. As Bryman (2008) highlights, this method allows to see ‘through the eyes of the people’ how they experience a certain social phenomenon. Additionally, semi-structured interviews allows for unexpected

(33)

23 information that has not come up throughout the literature review (Bryman, 2008). Through this type of qualitative method, emphasis is also put on the context, which is crucial especially when such a broad and versatile framework is used, as is the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach.

Semi-structured interviews were predominantly conducted with households that are committed to greening the districts through small-scale initiatives in each district in order to collect information about the livelihood assets that shape the undertaking and sustainment of these activities. Respondents were predominantly the individuals most involved in the maintenance of the garden. In their absence, other household or community members were interviewed, which implied gathering less insight into the technicalities of garden management but still collecting valuable information of both household and community situation. As previously mentioned, the maps resulting from the participatory mapping served as a guidance during the sampling procedure. The sample was finally formed by using non-random and convenience sampling techniques, influenced by the rapport built through the participatory mapping phase. These type of sampling techniques are flexible, let alone suitable when the researcher is more concerned with understanding the mechanisms behind a social phenomenon rather than with the external validity. It is also worth mentioning that the set of questions evolved as the research was advancing, with some added or left out, as well as adjusted according to the particular case that was being analysed. Questions were primarily open-ended and covered a variety of topics related to garden characteristics and management as well as the different livelihood assets involved ‒drawing on the operationalization tables (see Annex A.1 and A.2). Regarding the number of respondents, the main objective was to have a similar number of interviews in each district in order to be comparable.

As a final point, several exploratory interviews were conducted with residents from the selected districts in order to contextualise the current social processes in each district. I also consulted with experts and other key informants to better understand the residents’ commitment to increasing green-areas expanse through small-scale initiatives and other matters of interest. Other techniques such as participatory observation, informal conversations and field notes were used as a way of complementing the data collected by the main methods. They also helped to contextualise the gathered information as well as the possible researcher’s assumptions and interpretations of reality.

3.6. Data-Analysis

The geographical data collected through a GPS device was used to create several maps that inform about the location of small-scale greening initiatives in each district. In total, 75 and 144 gardens were mapped in SJM and VES, respectively (see

Annex A.4). Once the potential respondents were identified, a number of interviews

Greening districts through small-scale initiatives : a livelihood strategy to create new spaces of environmental justice in Lima, Peru

Greening Districts through

Small-Scale Initiatives

A Livelihood Strategy to Create New Spaces

of Environmental Justice in Lima, Peru

Ángela Herrera Molina

Greening Districts through Small-Scale Initiatives

A Livelihood Strategy to Create New Spaces of Environmental

Justice in Lima, Peru

MSc Thesis

International Development Studies

February 2014

Ángela Herrera Molina

To my Dad,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF MAPS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

GLOSSARY

ABSTRACT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1.

INTRODUCTION

2.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

2.1. Environmental Injustice as Vulnerability Context

2.2. Small-Scale Greening Initiatives as Livelihood Strategy

2.3. The Livelihoods Assets Pentagon

3.

METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research Questions

3.2. Conceptual Scheme

3.3. Operationalization of Major Concepts

3.4. Research Locations and Unit of Analysis

3.5. Methods and Sampling Techniques

3.6. Data-Analysis