What is stunting the growth of community gardens? : experiences in London and Amsterdam.

What is Stunting the Growth

of Community Gardens?

Phoebe Stewart

What is Stunting the Growth of

Community Gardens?

Experiences in London and Amsterdam

PHOEBE STEWART

Masters Thesis

Masters of Urban and Regional Planning University of Amsterdam

Version: FINAL

Submitted: June 20th, 2014

Author:

Phoebe Stewart

Student #: 10635750

phb.stwrt@gmail.com

Thesis Supervisor:

Dr. Sebastian Dembski

Second Reader:

Fredrico Savini

Table of Contents

Abstract………..……….. 5

1. Introduction……… 7

1.1 The Emergence of Food Planning ……… 9

1.2 The Problem……….….. 11

1.3 The Research………. 12

1.3.1 The Context………... 12

1.3.2 The Research Question……….………. 13

1.4 The Methodology………. 13

1.5 Structure of the Thesis……… 15

2. Understanding Community Gardens and Identifying Barriers……….…… 17

2.1 Defining Urban Agriculture………. 19

2.2 Origins ……….…….. 21

2.3 Why Farm the City?………..… 22

2.3.1 Food Security………..…….. 22 2.3.2 Environmental Reasons………. 23 2.3.3 Social Reasons……….. 23 2.4 Community Gardens……….… 24 2.4.1 Benefits……….. 25 2.5 Identifying Barriers………..… 26

2.5.1 Land and Planning………. 26

2.5.2 Financial……… 26

2.5.3 Social………..………. 27

2.5.4 Organizational……….….. 27

3. The London Investigation……….……….. 29

3.1 The Community Gardens………...… 32

3.2 Thematic Analysis of Barriers………...………..…. 35

3.2.1 Land and Planning………...… 35

3.2.2 Finances………...… 36

3.2.3 Social Conditions………...……….….. 37

3.2.4 Organization………...………..…… 39

4.The Amsterdam Investigation……….…….. 43

4.1 The Community Gardens……….. 46

4.2 Thematic Analysis of Barriers……… 49

4.2.1 Land and Planning………. 49

4.2.2 Finances……….…… 51

4.2.3 Social Conditions……….……… 52

4.2.4 Organization……….………….. 53

5. The Garden or The Community: Whose Growth is Truly Being Stunted?…… 57

5.1 London Conclusions………….………..… 59 5.1.1 Differences………... 59 5.1.2 Similarities……….. 60 5.2 Amsterdam Conclusions………..…….. 62 5.2.1 Differences……… 62 5.2.2 Similarities……….. 63

5.3 Comparing London and Amsterdam……… 64

5.3.1 Differences………...……….. 64 5.3.2 Similarties………..………... 65 5.4 Reflections………...………...……….… 66 5.4.1 Comprehending Barriers………...………….. 66 5.4.2 Critical Conclusions.………...……... 67 5.4.3 Policy Implications.………..……….. 67 6. The Conclusion……….………. 69 6.1 Summary of Findings... 71 6.2 The Limitations..………...……….….. 72 6.3 Further Research………....………. 72 References………...………. 73 List of Interviews………... 78

Abstract

The food planning movement registered its presence in Europe in the late

2000s (Morgan, 2009). Across the continent some municipal governments have

recently produced urban food strategies with hopes of promoting public health,

social justice and sustainability. London was one such example and launched

The London Food Strategy in 2006. Similarly, Amsterdam published their

official Food and Amsterdam vision early in 2014 (Morgan, 2009, DRO, 2014).

The climate is ripe for urban agriculture and the advocacy for these projects,

specifically community gardens, has become a common discourse related to

community food security and urban renewal. However, it is evident that a myriad

of barriers stand in the way of the successful development of such projects.

In addition, a comprehensive understanding of these barriers is lacking in the

literature. At the same time an absence of comparative case studies has left the

influence of the municipal context undefined.

This explorative study identifies the barriers perceived by the coordinators

of community garden projects in both London and Amsterdam through a series

of interviews. A thematic analysis of these interviews displayed 4 major themes

under which the barriers could be categorized; land and planning, finances,

social conditions and organization. The subsequent themes and their specific

barriers were then compared in order decribe the influence the municipal

context, which is inevitably very important for the first two themes, but not at

all for the latter. These findings have helped to attain a more comprehensive

understanding of the barriers, as they can now be viewed through a dichotomous

lens of garden development and community developmeent. In conclusion, this

lead to the production of policy recommendations that could be of benefit to

other food conscious cities that are beginning to plan for urban agriculture.

7

Introduction

1. Introduction

The future of food in the city is predicted to be a much more localized system than the one that currently exists. Consisting of urban agriculture projects of all scales; from community gardens, to vertical vegetable farms and even pig filled sky scrapers (Steel, 2008). Steel’s The Hungry City has made a noteworthy contribution to the urban food system discourse with regard to how food shapes the lives of the urbanites (2008). In 2013, Kevin Morgan wrote an editorial for

International Planning Studies titled, ‘The Rise of Urban Food Planning’ which has

seemingly marked the prominent arrival of agriculture onto the urban planning agenda (Morgan, 2013). Urban agriculture projects are already being cultivated in cities around the world, and advocacy for such projects is strong in realms of both academic literature and public media. One recent article in The Guardian (2014) advocating urban agriculture poignantly stated, “Food has a future — we have a future — when we design our cities from the soil up.” While these projects often experience enthusiastic support, there is still a very evident struggle, or else gardens and farms would be seen around the corners of every city. This research will delve into this realm of barriers encountered by urban agriculture projects, specifically community gardens through an investigation of the perceived barriers to their facilitation. This will be examined through the lens of the coordinators of such community garden projects within both Amsterdam and London. The research will also discuss how these barriers are understood by planners and experts from private initiatives in order paint a more complete picture. Lastly the identified barriers and their perceptions will be compared across the two cases in order to identify the impact of each municipal context. Urban agriculture is slowly being woven into the urban fabric of many cities, but it is important to firstly understand how this came to be.

1.1 The Emergence of Food Planning

In general, planners have historically attributed their lack of attention to food systems through the notion that food production is an exclusively rural activity and thus have failed to appreciate the significance and possibilities within the realm of urban agriculture (Lawson, 2004; Morgan 2013). Urban agriculture is an activity that has never disappeared in the hungry cities of the developing world and that is why such countries and cities provide a history of rich research projects. Meanwhile, in the western world the concept is re-appearing in the more sustainability focused cities that are re-imagining ‘the city as a farm’ (Morgan, 2009, p. 341). Historically, urban land-use policy has left little to no space for extensive agricultural projects and that in itself has created a barrier for these types of developments. At the same time planned green spaces have occupied the planning agenda for years as a priority in order to initiate positive effects on the environment, citizen health and relaxation. More recently with the popularity of the urban farming trend, urban agriculture has taken off in the form of grassroots initiatives in the form of community and school gardens, city farms and larger scale urban agriculture projects (Van Leeuwen et al., 2010). These grassroots projects have caught the eye of policy makers, and city-food strategies are popping up around the globe in hopes to facilitate the movement towards sustainable food practices.

The leaders of the G8 assembled for their first ever food summit five years ago, in 2009. Food security had officially become an issue of national security after the food price surge of the recession triggered food riots in more than sixty

countries around the world (Morgan, 2009, p. 342). Food security is most often associated with the developing world but when considering what could go wrong in the modern food industry of the western world the possibilities are endless (Steel, 2008, p. 99). Specifically, food security of communities can be defined as the insurance of residents to have consistent access to high-quality affordable food through common, not charitable, channels and that those channels be sustainable economically, socially and environmentally (Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 2000, p. 121). In extreme cases, a lack of food security can lead to the development of ‘food deserts’ which refers to neighbourhoods that have little to no grocery stores or to only have access to stores that provide foods with low nutritional value, like gas stations, or corner stores (Saed, 2012). In losing a communities food security it can also be considered that they simultaneously lose justice. The justice of a city is to be considered as equitable, diverse and democratic. This is all lost if the population cannot simply feed themselves at a level of acceptable nutrition (Fainstein, 2009). This justice can be reclaimed through the promotion of the local food economy and the food security of communities across cities. This realization has lead to the integration of a food system into many municipal planning agendas (Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 2000).

In 2010, Kevin Morgan and Roberta Sonnino identified the ‘new food equation’ as a way to explain the emergence of urban food strategies. Food security, as previously described, was a key factor in this equation, but not the only one. Environmental concerns are also inlvoved, such as the extent to which the impact of climate change will affect the food systems. The most serious problems, such as: water and heat stress, rising sea levels and damaged ecosystems are expected to be most damaging to poorer countries in turn intensifying issues of food security. However, this does not mean that the richer countries of the global north will be immune to climate issues. Another factor identified in the ‘new food equation’ was the escalating land conflicts. Saudi Arabia and South Korea are examples of rich yet food-stressed countries due to their insufficient stock of fertile land. These countries have been purchasing fertile land across both Africa and Asia in order to secure the futures of food security, but this may lead to a new era of colonialism. Lastly, the rapid urbanization of the global population has forced cities to be more mindful of how they feed themselves. The combination of these factors make up the ‘new food equation’ and provide a comprehensive understanding to why food strategies have become relevant in cities across the globe (Morgan & Sonnino, 2010).

The food system itself is important to the development the city for a myriad of reasons. The food system has an extremely multifunctional character and it can have sweeping effects on many other sectors. These sectors can include: public health, social justice and the environmental and land-use departments. The impacts of the food system can even be felt by the departments of transportation and economic development (Morgan, 2009, p. 341). The food sector alone provides extremely high levels of employment within a city, from restaurant jobs to grocery store clerks, it is an integral part of a city’s economy (Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 2000). When considering the number of trips taken by households and individuals to grocery stores and other food stores it is easy to comprehend the significant contribution that the food system makes to urban transportation volume. With regard to land, the responsibility has fallen on cities to reduce urban sprawl, which in turn has brought important attention to the preservation of agricultural land

outside city limits. Environmentally speaking, problems of pollution

and waste are significantly increased by the food system. The chemical

fertilizers and pesticides used on by farmers with the regions of cities can

infiltrate the local water systems becoming very dangerous to

consumers and the environment. Food waste represents a large portion of land fills; this includes food packaging, left overs and other general food waste that has not yet been integrated into a composting or recycling network. As for the public health sector, issues due to an inadequate/unbalanced diet or the inaccessibility of healthy food options can lead to many different illnesses. Research has discovered that minority communities concentrated in urban areas face a higher than average risk of diet-related health problem (Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 2000). In conclusion, the multifaceted nature of the food system highlights the importance of food planning in the future successes of cities around the world.

1.2 The Problem

Urban agriculture projects and their benefits are framed in a positive light and the process is one that is idealized by many environmental and sustainable planners. Additionally, with the emergence of food planning and a newfound importance laid onto community food security, community gardens have become a popular solution in many municipalities and have demonstrated a myriad of additional benefits including a significant increase in the social capital of a neighbourhood (Firth et al., 2011). Consequently, this research identifies the existing problems that community gardens are encountering constant barriers in their development and facilitation processes, thus fostering a non-conducive environment for these developments. The previous research into the barriers of urban agriculture has been carried out mainly in singular case studies, and has resulted largely in the formation of limited lists rather than a comprehensive understanding or general structure of the barriers encountered. Also, these previous researches have included urban agriculture of various sizes and have not focused purely on community gardens. This opens a gap in the literature that this work will attempt to fill. The research will strive to not only identify barriers experienced by community garden leaders, but also attempt to produce a generalizable lens through which to view and understand the barriers.

Here, in order to foster some initial insight, a few of the barriers that have been identified in previous research will be briefly outlined. In an article about multifunctional urban agriculture, Lovell (2010) identified these barriers: (1) limited access to land, (2) insufficient infrastructure and supportive services, (3) intense competition from other land uses, (4) lack of research on human health risks in growing food and (5) lack of skills and experience in urban agriculture. Then in 2013 an article was published out of Chicago and was one of the only articles to directly investigate the barriers to urban and peri-agriculture which, in this case, occurred in the greater-Chicago area. This article initially focused on the regulatory barriers because they had not been previously examined, but after an extensive interview process with both farmers and planners the researchers were able to identify seven key barriers to the development of these projects. Those barriers were: (1) lack of clear, agriculture-inclusive ordinances, (2) zoning that makes agriculture a special use is overly specific, (3) limited access to land, (4) high costs and lack of funding, (5) lack of farmer training and certification, (6) limited access to water and dealing with water runoff and (7) finding insurance (Castillo et al., 2013). It was concluded that regulatory reform could help facilitate solutions to each of their barriers, meaning that each barrier is accompanied by a problem of regulation (2013). Wang and Nevius (2013) also wrote about the issues of insuring

urban agricultural projects and they noted that most

types of insurance do not satisfy the needs of urban farmers. In the case

of community gardens the high premiums of general liability become cost

prohibitive and put strict budget constraints on the potential of the gardens (p. 327). Funding is a common barrier for many developing projects. The issues of, specifically, financing urban agriculture include the inexperience of farmers and gardeners in creating business plans. This fosters a strong reluctance to ask for loans. Often urban agriculture is self-financed, and many projects hang in the balance of whether or not the initiators can afford them (Cabannes, 2012). It is clearly evident that barriers exist but they are rarely expanded upon, or compared to each other within cases or across them.

1.3 The Research

In response to the problem described in the previous section, this research will investigate and compare the barriers encountered by a sample of community gardens embedded within two cases: London and Amsterdam. A systematic investigation across these two cases will provide new insights into community gardens and what specifically impedes their success. The following section will begin by delving deeper into the context of this research, then the research question will be stated explicitly. This will segue in the next section where a description of the simple methodology that will be followed in order to answer the question at hand will be outlined.

1.3.1 The Context

In order to further understand the context of this research, it is essential to recognize Amsterdam and London as two food-conscience cities with policy frameworks to prove it. The municipality of London initiated a Food Strategy in 2006 for the city including a sub-plan titled “Critical Growth” that aimed to foster the creation of 2,012 community gardens across the city by 2012 (London Food Board, 2006). Upon review of their final reports in regard to what they had learned, and what could have been done differently, it was apparent that barriers were present in many forms; from economic, to spatial and regulatory and lastly social obstacles of acceptance and participation. Meanwhile, earlier this year, the City of Amsterdam drafted their first Food Vision for 2024. It is a ten-year ‘vision’ which the municipality has laid out in hopes to shape the future of food in Amsterdam (DRO, 2014). Both cities have shown a strong level of commitment to creating sustainable futures for food within their urban settings. Demonstrated in each city through the implementation of diverse food planning strategies and urban agriculture ambitions.

In selecting the type of urban agriculture projects which are to be investigated for this research it became clear that meso-scale projects, specifically community gardens, would provide the largest sample from which to pull interviewees in both cities (Pearson et al., 2010). These types of projects occur more often than those of commercial interest and large-scale farming ventures because of their relatively small size and the fact that they are much more suited to the urban backdrop. It is important to note that while these community garden ventures are more abundant than the rest, this does not necessarily mean that they are easily executed. Additionally, existing literature on community gardens tends to advocate for the projects and outline their benefits rather than focussing on their struggles. This standpoint of advocacy leads to the importance of this research which could foster

a new comprehension with regard to what is stunting the

growth of community gardens, and eventually lead to an abundance of

garden developments.

Community gardens, in both London and Amsterdam, are understood as neighbourhood entities controlled by the community and it’s members (DRO, 2014; Farmgarden.org.uk. 2014). The municipality of Amsterdam refers to the community gardens across the city as moestuins or buurtmoestuinen which translates simply to vegetable gardens or neighbourhood gardens. It has been noted that these garden projects have largely sprouted up for the pure purpose of food production to be consumed solely by the residents of the community. In some cases goals of the gardens also include the dissemination of knowledge, awareness and education for children (DRO, 2014, p. 20). Amsterdam’s Department of Planning asserts that by working in neighbourhood gardens people get to know each other and this can help with the integration of society. They claim that the social and educational aspects of neighbourhood gardens are just as important as the food (DRO, 2014, p.11). In London, community gardens are run by a varied groups of people who come together to with the common interest of gardening and the aim to produce food locally, but they are also just as much about helping communities and individuals, thus making the neighbourhoods better (Capital Growth, 2013a). According to the United Kingdom’s Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens, these projects not only add to the economic welfare of the neighbourhood in which they are developed, they also help improve both the physical and mental health of the communities. Much like Amsterdam, community gardens in London foster cohesion of communities and help in their development (Farmgarden.org.uk. 2014). Community gardens are fast becoming an integral thread in the urban fabric of both cities; this is why it is important to fully understand the barriers that are encounter throughout the development.

1.3.2 The Question

To recap, the general problem statement can be summarized as:

Advocacy for urban agriculture, specifically community gardens, has become a common discourse with relation to community food security and urban renewal. However, it is evident that a myriad of barriers stand in the way of the successful development of such projects. In addition, a comprehensive understanding of these barriers is lacking in the literature. At the same time an absence of comparative case studies has left the influence of the municipal context undefined.

Therefore the research question that will be investigated is:

What are the barriers perceived by community garden coordinators that inhibit the development and facilitation of projects within Amsterdam and London? Secondly, how comparable are these barriers across the municipal context?

1.4 Methodology

In order to answer the research question at hand, this research will take form in an explorative and comparative embedded case study design. The cases being London, UK and Amsterdam, The Netherlands with a diverse purposive sample of community gardens in each city formulating the embedded aspects of each case (Bryman, 2008; Yin, 2009). Thus, the units of analysis can be identified

as the community gardens themselves (Yin, 2009). An explorative design

is ideal for this research because the barriers have not been researched

extensively, and a sound hypothesis cannot be reached based on previous

research (Yin, 2009). Also, exploring the two cases separately, and later comparing them will aid in the understanding of the importance of municipal context in the recognition of barriers (Yin, 2009).

The methodology is inspired by the one presented in the first chapter of Wendy Tan’s dissertation on pursuing transit-oriented development (2013). In this chapter, a schematic framework was developed for collecting and analyzing data related to the barriers to transit oriented development in the context of the Netherlands. First a literature review in order to identify the barriers to urban agricultural projects that have been previously mentioned in academic literature and professional research and formulate a few propositions on which to generate structured interviews for the next stage (Tan, 2013). The first round of semi-structured interviews will be conducted with project coordinators of various community gardens across both London and Amsterdam. This will set the foundation of commonly perceived barriers across each city. After solidifying the commonly perceived barriers and their context a second round of brief structured interviews will be conducted with experts from the fields of planning and urban agriculture. These experts will include public policy makers or planners and private urban agriculture initiative directors in order to triangulate an understanding of the perceived barriers. This second round of interviews will supplement the thematic analysis and the final discussion in hopes to foster a greater understanding of the barriers perceived by the community garden leaders. This methodology will lead to an extensive understanding of the perceived barriers in both London and Amsterdam. The final step of the research will be to compare the cases and see what general conclusions can be reached, if any, or if the municipal context changes barriers across the board.

The selection process for my embedded samples of community garden projects follows a purposive selection structure with aims of diversity (Bryman, 2008). Projects will be chosen based on their recognition by the municipality as community gardens or, moestuin/buurtmoestuinen in the case of Amsterdam. This is done in order to avoid those guerrilla gardening projects that do not necessarily follow the determined policies laid out by the municipality. Coordinators from four community garden projects will be interviewed in the first stage of data collection, and these interviews have been recorded and later transcribed in order to easily segue into the analysis stage.

The interviews are semi-structured in-order to promote flexibility in how the coordinators can respond to the questions (Bryman, 2008). This is especially important as this research is investigating the perceived barriers and experiences of the garden coordinators. The interview guides were structured with the barriers previously identified by the respective municipality in which the interview took place. In the case of London, a report was formulated and outlined what they had learned is the processes of developing 2,012 new community gardens as part of the Capital Growth. The identified issues were segregated in six sections which included issues with: money, land, volunteers, building networks, administration, government policy and the process of working with other non-government initiatives (Capital Growth, 2013b). This report, ‘What we learned while creating 2,012 new community food growing spaces in London,’ acts as a learning resource for future projects, but does not expand on the actual barriers that were encountered by different projects (Capital Growth, 2013b). These lessons provide a substantiated source of information upon which the initial research interviews could be formulated. Meanwhile, for the case of Amsterdam the municipality briefly mentions the barriers to the creation of community gardens in their Food and Amsterdam vision. Nine questions of new project coordinators in the development stages were identified:

These questions are not expanded upon or answered within the strategy, but they again provide a healthy starting point for further investigation and creation of the interview guide.

The analysis of the coordinator interviews take shape in the form of a thematic analysis of barriers executed through manual coding of key words and common phrases and creating connections, which will result in the identification of specific barriers to be categorized under umbrella themes (Bryman, 2008). The literature review of previously identified barriers also be thematically categorized and help to deductively inform the themes analyzed within the interviews. However, as the previous literature is limited, providing a restricted scope of barriers, the generation of a hypothesis was not possible because a clear consensus of barriers could not be identified. In this sense the specific barriers, or sub-themes, must be deduced inductively and aim to generate a new knowledge and arrive at a new theory regarding the barriers by community gardens (Bryman, 2008).

The research hopes to solidify a new understanding of the barriers perceived by coordinators as it does not currently exist in academic literature. Following this methodology will help facilitate the discussion and conclusions to the research question. The openness of the process will allow for the development of a larger scope in the understanding and identification of barriers experienced during the implementation and facilitation processes. As mentioned, the lack of a solidified hypothesis stems from the diverse results of previous research and an inability of finding a common denominator of on which to form a general hypothesis. This necessitated the exploratory design, and also provided an interesting platform for the comparison of two embedded case studies (Yin, 2009). In conclusion, the following research aims to not only add a comparative case-study to the library of previous research, but to uncover a more comprehensible understanding of the barriers encountered by community gardens.

1.5 Structure of Thesis

The accompanying structure of this thesis will follow a logical development of information. The next chapter will be centred around the contextual theory necessary to foster a complete understanding of community gardens; from the broad definitions of urban agriculture to the origins and definitions of community gardens themselves. This chapter will conclude with a description of the previously identified barriers found in other research. Chapters three and four will describe the cases of London and Amsterdam and their embedded samples of community gardens. In addition to these descriptions a thematic analysis of the empirical interview data collected will be described for each respective case. Following these two chapters of analysis, chapter five will conclude and compare the cases in order to answer the research question posed earlier. As a part of this discussion chapter a reflection on the research as a whole has been included. This section will consider the implications that the research could mean for policy as well as a

What permits do I need? What is the the zoning of the land on which I want to grow? Where can I find a buyer? Where can I find seed / fertilizer / advice?

Are there any sites where I can get underway? Who should I be? What are the tax consequences of commissioning building sites? Where can I get water?

How do I draw residents / children / other organizations there, for the benefit of broader support? (DRO, 2014, p. 21)

a few critical conclusions which will be gathered from the research. Finally, chapter six will conclude the thesis with a recap of the research and the findings before a brief discussion of the limitations of the research along with suggestions for further research.

17

Understand Community Gardens

and Identifying Barriers

2. Understanding Community Gardens

and Identifying Barriers

This chapter aims to foster a greater understanding of community gardens and urban agriculture. Reflecting on what previous authors have discovered and elaborated upon, this chapter will provide a contextually theoretical background for the research. It will develop logically, beginning with the definitions and conceptualizations of urban agriculture before segueing into its’ origins. The more recent development of the social movement will follow, then a simple trend analysis will round out the current state of affairs. The benefits of agriculture in the urban environment will then be developed; from a brief description of why the city should be farmed and then elaborating on particular environmental benefits, the idealized shift towards self-reliance, and also the advantageous social factors that urban agriculture projects bring into the picture. Finally, the chapter will delve into the specifics of community gardens as they are the central point of this research and require a more focused appreciation and specified conceptualization. In conclusion, this chapter shall leave the reader with a comprehensive basis of knowledge with regard to urban agriculture and community gardens.

2.1 Defining urban agriculture

The term urban agriculture can be defined as the agricultural production of fruits, vegetables and sometimes even livestock, within intra- and peri-urban areas (de Zeeuw, 2004; Fao.org, 2014). It can also be understood as a complementary addition to both rural and foreign food systems, which have historically supplied urbanites with food (Mougeot, 2000 ). However, other than the obvious differences in locale, there is one inherent difference that sets urban agriculture apart from its rural counterpart. At its foundation urban agriculture is integrated into the economic and ecological systems of the city. These agriculture projects are embedded into the fabric of the city and are constantly interacting with the urban setting (de Zeeuw, 2004). Examples of these continuous interactions with the urban environment include: the use of urban resources like the water supply, the organic waste of residents to create compost, and also the competition with other urban projects for land supply and zoning allowances. The relationship between urban residents and the projects themselves include their roles as the ‘farmers’, and as direct consumers of the produce. Lastly the connection with the environment and ecological system include the beneficial and detrimental impacts induced directly by the agriculture projects. These interactions are fundamental in setting urban agriculture apart from the traditional rural definitions, but that is not to say that the obvious locational differences are not important.

There are two widely accepted settings in which urban agriculture can take place. The first of these settings is identified as the peri-urban area. Authors have struggled to agree on the definition of the peri-urban area, but it is generally identified as the city fringe, or the zone that directly surrounds the built up city (Mougeot, 2000; de Zeeuw, 2004; FAO, 2014). Historically, cities were built to include a green belt, sanctioned for agriculture, that surrounded their borders in order to sustain the accessibility of the food supply and support the food transport system. However, as the technology of the industrial era made mass production a common reality and the transport of food over long distances became much easier, the green belts eventually became seemingly less important (Steel, 2008). It is within these old green belts that peri-urban

agriculture is found. These areas are also regularly undergoing changes, dependant upon the growth of the city, they are often quickly developed and lay host to both rural and urban migrants who are seeking a happy medium between the city and the country. This kind of development creates a peri-urban environment and the previously rural agriculture must redevelop into its urban brother. This shift can be seen in the scaling down of production systems, and the resulting products are often less staple crops, and more of the perishable varieties; for example: less wheat, more strawberries, or fewer cows and more chickens for egg production. This production shift occurs due to the shortened distance between the producers and consumers. However, the peri-urban setting still tends to focus on commercial production levels, which help to provide a number of jobs for urban dwellers. Meanwhile, in the more central areas of the city, intra-urban agriculture exists on a much smaller scale, but it is an equally important one.

The second setting for urban agriculture is that of the intra-urban locale, which references a venue within the urban boundaries of a city (Mougeot, 2000; de Zeeuw, 2004). When discussing urban agriculture authors do not always distinguish the setting therefore it is not always easy to define the constraints of the location. One definition of intra-urban agriculture identifies the following list of criteria required for an intra-urban definition: population sizes, density thresholds, official city borders, municipal boundaries of the city, agricultural use of land zoned otherwise, and the act of agricultural production within the legal and regulatory understanding of urban authorities (Mougeot, 2000). This list helps to simplify the process of defining what exactly is meant by intra-urban agriculture. Intra-intra-urban agriculture commonly makes use of vacant or under-utilized land all across cities. These empty spaces include land that is not suited to support building development, land that is left untouched as a buffer between residential and business or industrial districts, under-utilized parks or boulevards and also idle land that is currently untouched but reserved for future plans. Spaces such as these lend themselves handily to temporary agricultural uses and in some cases even permanent (de Zeeuw, 2004). Common agricultural systems in the intra-urban setting include that of nurseries, community gardens, back yard gardens and city farms. Most agriculture in this type of setting is self-sustaining and only requires minor involvement of residents and gardeners. However, the popularity of farmers markets and the local food movement has brought some projects to a market level that requires higher production values and more supervision (Mougeot, 2000; de Zeeuw, 2004). The intra-urban setting in most often recognized as the typical site of intra-urban agriculture, but the peri-urban environment remains an important part of the definition. Conceptualizing the scale of projects that range across the urban agriculture definition is another integral facet in understanding this broad topic. One article disaggregates the scale of urban agriculture into three categories that can be identified amongst all urban agriculture projects; they are micro, meso and macro. In brief, micro projects refer to the smallest level of production, the meso-level encompasses the small-medium scale projects found most often in the intra-urban setting and lastly the macro level urban agricultural consists of the largest scale ventures which are most often commercially focused and located in the peri-urban areas (Pearson et al., 2010). At each level of scale projects can be managed and developed by both private and public parties; private firms and government offices have been seen to both initiate and support urban agriculture (Pearson et al., 2010). The discussion of micro-level projects, can be developed hand in hand with the greening of compact city spaces. Different types of ground level green spaces can be identified for this specific purpose; including facades, backyards, street verges and enclaves

(Jim, 2004; Pearson et al., 2010). The small size of these projects is required due to the dense urban environment and the high level of competition for land. The spaces themselves are often isolated and unevenly distributed, thus very valued due to their scarcity (Jim, 2004). The meso-scale of urban agriculture is slightly larger and more involved. Often taking shape in urban parks and community gardens, these projects typically manifest on public land, but are often privately initiated; proving the symbiotic relationship required to create resilient green, growing spaces in the midst of the concrete jungle (Pearson et al., 2010). Also, a benefit of the micro and meso-scale, the smaller the project the seemingly easier it is to initiate. The meso and micro scale of urban agriculture is much less regulated than the macro scale, leaving the larger projects to deal with much different issues. Macro projects can include commercial scale farms, nurseries, greenhouses. At the macro scale of urban agriculture production, the minimization of land-use conflicts becomes one of the main obstacles encountered on the path to the development. Preserving land for agricultural uses on the urban fringe will remain a fight as cities continue to expand (Pearson et al., 2010). In order to remain a part of the urban fabric, urban agriculture will continue to come in all shapes and sizes; manifesting within the ever changing borders of the city requires much flexibility.

2.2 Origins

Urban agriculture, at its origins, cultivated itself as a form of food security for the poorer classes across Europe even before the turn of the century. According to Carolyn Steel (2008, p. 311), “The dream of every peasant has always been to be self-sufficient in food.” Urban agriculture was recognized as rural habit that survived by migrants who entered the urban environment and found comfort in their old ways. Traditionally, it has been expected to fizzle overtime, but this is evidently not the case. It has actually proven to be an urban phenomenon that grows in co-ordination with the population and city size (de Zeeuw, 2004). The most recognizable form of historic urban agriculture took shape as ‘allotments’ within the city boundaries. Allotments themselves were simply segregated pockets of urban-land zoned for agricultural uses, and then sections of that land were split up and distributed to individuals and families throughout the neighbouring areas. In Britain this initially gained momentum, more than 100 years ago, as the House of Lords within Parliament began to support the idea that these allotment garden projects could help meet the increasing need of an affordable food supply for the working class on an indefinite basis (Knight and Riggs, 2000). Meanwhile, the first allotments, or volkstuin in Dutch, in the Netherlands sprouted up along city fringes in the 15th century to allow workers the opportunity to consume their dietary staples like cabbage at a much more affordable rate (Denham, 2012). Another historic example took place during and proceeding the Second World War when food security in Britain was at an all time low. Allotments were taken back onto the national agenda and they became responsible for feeding the country through the famous Dig for Victory campaign (Steel, 2008). During this period, London was transformed into a farming mecca, with allotments throughout all of the city’s parks and even beside famous monuments. The campaign proved to be a massive success and by the time the war was over Britain was providing 50% of its own fruits and vegetables and a tenth of the nation’s food. This campaign proved the untapped potential and capabilities of farming in the city (Steel, 2008). It is clear that these formal allotments are at the root of urban agriculture as a form of food security, but it also important to recognize the more recent informal social aspects that have surrounded the urban agriculture movement.

gardening has also expanded as part of a social movement acting as a catalyst in bringing together diverse communities. That movement is the reemergence of unauthorized, do-it-yourself urban design, which is considered a phenomenon of the supposed neoliberal era. DIY urbanism, as it is so called, is viewed as a response and result of the anatomy and functions that make up the contemporary cities of today (Douglas, 2014). Guerrilla gardening is one such response and can be considered the vessel that made gardens cool again. Considered to be a form of do-it-yourself urban design, guerrilla greening is the act of planting on and converting unused spaces, “[including] tending neglected road medians or vacant lots to create flourishing gardens, [and] converting parking spaces into impromptu parks” (Douglas, 2014, p. 14). This kind of action is said to be a direct response for citizens as they encounter something in their communities that needed improvement, but was not getting any attention from city planners. These guerrilla gardeners proceed to take the task into their own hands and to do it themselves. To put it simply, DIY urbanism and guerrilla gardening are functional improvements of public spaces executed for the public by the public (Douglas, 2014). However, guerrilla gardening remains largely small-scale and is still gaining momentum and does not typically fit comfortably into urban agriculture literature (Crane, Viswanathan and Whitelaw, 2013). For this research however, it is relevant to note that guerrilla gardening often takes shape of largely informal settings in which communities come together and green unused public space (Crane, Viswanathan and Whitelaw, 2013). The majority of the cases selected for each sample of community gardens in this research came about in the same way, but became official in order to gain funding and security within their projects. Community gardens themselves will be explored more extensively later on in this chapter. While defining the differences between guerrilla and community gardens is not necessarily relevant to the following research, it is important to recognize the variety of social origins from which community gardens stem.

2.3 Why Farm the City?

As stated in its definition, urban agriculture is inherently linked to a city’s ecology as well as its economy (de Zeeuw, 2004). It is considered an important supply source for the urban food system, and the implementation of such projects can be considered a tool of urban planners. Urban agriculture can be applied in making productive use of open spaces, managing fresh water resources effectively, generating employment and of course increasing the food security for the urban population (Mougeot, 2000). Advocacy for urban agriculture has been a common stream of research regarding the topic (Mougeot, 2000; Pearson et al., 2010). Urban agriculture has been shown to increase access to healthy affordable food, reduce carbon footprints and strengthen the local economy (Grewal and P. Grewal, 2012). The benefits are well documented and explored by many authors; they will be broken down and explored in the following section.

2.3.1 Food Security

Outlined in the introduction, the emergence of food planning came forth largely in response to concerns regarding food security. In brief, food security is defined as the assurance of regular access to high-quality affordable food through sustainable, economic and environmental channels (Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 2000). Therefore, when considering the benefits of urban agriculture, the most appropriate jumping off point is to point out the ideal proximity of food production in relation to consumers. The aim to abolish problems of food

security in urban area through urban agriculture is attainable, and is researched extensively by S. Grewal and P. Grewal (2012). The authors refer to the concept of self-reliance. Local self-reliance references the principle of a locality being able to fill its basic needs, and often more, from within their personal footprints. As noted in their research, one household can meet many of their nutritional requirements as well as their yearly vegetable needs in an average growing season in a 10m by 10m plot of land (Grewal and P. Grewal, 2012). An increase in food security, can also lead to an increase in health. Urban agriculture can help to alleviate dietary deficiencies of various nutrients and vitamins, which is particularly helpful in poorer communities (Pearson et al., 2010). Obesity is also an ever growing epidemic, and in Western cities it is more common to die from obesity than it is to die from hunger. Increasing the availability fresh affordable food in the city may help promote a healthy shift in the diets of the greater population (Steel, 2008). Bringing agriculture into the city will shift the food system and societies will be able to reach a level of self-reliance rarely seen in the modern world (Grewal and P. Grewal, 2012, Steel 2008).

2.3.2 Environmental Reasons

As urban agriculture is woven into the ecological system of the urban environment. It can play an integral role in bettering a city’s environmental management system. Waste has become an issue in many cities and one solution has lead to repurposing urban waste into a productive resource used by urban agriculture. Initiatives in various cities have begun collecting organic waste from households, restaurants and markets; this waste is then turned into composts and sometimes even animal feed. These compost-making initiatives also serve as job creator and provide new income possibilities for the urban poor. Composting and recycling through agriculture can help to reduce loss of nutrients and eventually lead to enhanced soil nutrition. (de Zeeuw, 2004; Pearson et al., 2010;) Storm water can also be considered as a secondary waste, and can be redirected to urban agriculture projects, therein fuelling their growth (Pearson et al., 2010; de Zeeuw, 2010: S. Grewal and P. Grewal, 2012). Another environmental benefit includes the decrease in carbon dioxide emissions due to a decrease in food transportation requirement. One calculation noted that if food production and consumption shifted to a wholly local scale in the United Kingdom, the level of carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by 22%, which is double the amount that the country has committed to under the Kyoto Protocol (Doron, 2005). Carbon emissions from buildings can also be reduced through urban agriculture by building living walls and rooftop agriculture. By themselves green roofs have the potential of reducing a building’s carbon emissions by 9% (Pearson et al., 2010). Also, when considering the air quality and urban heat it is interesting to note that it is measured to be 4–5ºC cooler over urban parks and agricultural projects when compared to the surrounding built-environment. Lastly, segueing into the social benefits, urban agriculture can help to significantly mitigate noise pollution. The vegetation and trees serve as an absorbent sponge for city sounds, thus making the environment much more enjoyable for the citizens (Pearson et al., 2010).

2.3.3 Social Reasons

In order for urban agricultural to continue to be a part of the new urban make-up it must be directly beneficial to the citizens; providing more than simply food, but also social advantages. It has proven to be an important strategy in diminishing poverty and facilitating the integration of disadvantaged groups into the socio-economic system of the city. In some cities these groups have been

invited to join in on urban agricultural projects as a social service and not only do they reap the benefits of abundant vegetables, but they also gain higher self esteem, better communication skills and environmental education (de Zeeuw, 2004; Pearson et al., 2010). Developing an eco-education is not only important for adults, but also children. Understanding where food comes from and how it grows is an integral facet of knowledge that should be promoted (de Zeeuw, 2004; Pearson et al., 2010). Participation in urban agricultural projects can also foster better physical health by offsetting the decline in physical activity associated with aging, especially in women (Pearson et al., 2010). It can also provide a therapeutic element, “Gardening is a form of ritual; as well as creating beauty around us, it works within our minds, as a symbolic act” (Stuart-Smith, 2014). Urban agriculture can calm the mind and also provide participants and urbanites with a new sense of place. It can lead to an increase in a person’s environmental values, and sometimes help to preserve a national rural image, which is being lost as countries become more and more urbanized (Pearson et al., 2010). The researched advocation of urban agriculture becomes substantiated as these outlined social benefits round out the diverse advantages of urban agriculture.

2.4 Community Gardens

The definition of community is two-fold; it can be defined within the bounds of a location and its inhabitants, or it can pertain to a feeling of camaraderie, as a result of sharing common goals, attitudes and interests (Stevenson, 2010). Both definitions are applicable when describing community gardens. Community gardens are a public gardens, often grassroots initiatives, located in an urban environment and developed for the collective benefit of the residing community. In terms of ownership and access they are public and they often function under a degree of democratic control by its members (Corrigan, 2011; Firth et al., 2011). Community gardens, in both London and Amsterdam, are understood as neighbourhood entities controlled by the community and it’s members (DRO, 2014; Farmgarden.org.uk. 2014). The municipality of Amsterdam refers to the community gardens across the city as moestuinen or buurtmoestuinen which translates simply to vegetable gardens or neighbourhood gardens. In London, community gardens are run by varied groups of people who come together with the common interest of gardening and the aim to produce food locally, but they are also just as much about helping communities and individuals and making the neighbourhoods better (Capital Growth, 2013a). While each community garden has various goals and may function differently, they all have general focus towards growing a collective good; both in vegetable and social formats. Community gardens typically take shape under one of two models: an allotment model in which members lay claim to specific piece of land within the garden, or shared gardens where all growing is done on a communal basis (Pearson et al., 2010). One important distinction to mention here is the inherent difference between allotment gardens and community gardens. Both are located within London and Amsterdam, but they function very differently. As mentioned in the discussion of the origins of urban agriculture, allotments are plots of land rented out to individuals as a space for them to grow vegetables, and are typically for strictly personal use (amsterdam.nl, 2014; London.gov.uk, 2014b). Allotments in the UK, specifically London, are strictly private gardens. They are dispersed throughout the city and averagely rented out to individuals for £50-£100 depending on location (london.gov.uk, 2014b). Meanwhile Amsterdam allotments are much more expensive and can vary in purpose. Renting an allotment in Amsterdam can cost between €250-€750 annually, or they are

available to purchase for upwards of €3000. Sometimes they are merely designated for private gardening, but as they become more expensive it is likely that they are allotments on which houses and sheds may be built and can be occupied during the warmer months, between April 1-October 1. Providing private gardening space as well as a weekend getaway (amsterdam.nl, 2014; bondvanvolkstuinders. nl, 2014). Both Amsterdam and London allotments are a departure from the community garden model defined above, but the distinction is important when considering the development of community garden projects within these two cities.

2.4.1 Benefits

As discussed in the previous section, ‘Why Farm the City?’, the benefits of urban agriculture can be seen as considerably advantageous. Community gardens encompass many of the aforementioned benefits, but they have also shown specific virtues which are fundamental to their development and, inevitably, their resilience. These benefits are highlighted as an increase to the social capital of the communities in which they are planted (Firth et al., 2011). These garden projects promote a sense of community and they have been shown to cut across barriers of racism and diverse economic backgrounds; bringing people together from all walks of life. This in turn leads to enhancement of neighbourhoods through a new flow of information, accountability, security, and simply a new found level of community cohesion (Doron, 2005, Pearson et.al., 2010, Firth et al., 2011; Grewal and P. Grewal, 2012). Reaching a level of self-reliance also feeds into the empowerment of communities, “Those who control our food control our lives, and when we take that control back into our own hands, we empower ourselves toward autonomy, self-reliance, and true freedom’’ (S. Grewal and P. Grewal, 2012: quoting Flores, 2006). The goals set out by a community garden often inform the type of community benefits that will result from the implementation of the project. If the core aim however is to promote a sense of community alongside food growing, then it is essential for the garden to be initiated from the bottom-up by community members who will exert a sense of responsibility and ownership that outsiders would not be privy to (Firth et al., 2011). Community experiences are key in grasping the full benefits of these community garden projects, and when recognized at a higher level they become even more powerful. Both cities examined for this research acknowledge the benefits of community gardens outside of their food growing capabilities. In Amsterdam it has been noted that while these garden projects have largely sprouted up for the pure purpose of food production, in some cases goals of the gardens also include the dissemination of knowledge, awareness and education for children (DRO, 2014, p. 20). Amsterdam’s Department of Planning asserts that by working in neighbourhood gardens people get to know each other and this can help with the integration of society. They claim that the social and educational aspects of neighbourhood gardens are just as important as the food (DRO, 2014, p.11). London has a similarly positive outlook, and according to the United Kingdom’s Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens, these projects not only add to the economic welfare of the neighbourhood in which they are developed, they also help improve both the physical and mental health of the communities. Much like Amsterdam, community gardens in London foster cohesion of communities and help in their development (Farmgarden.org.uk. 2014). This positivist representation makes the identification and understanding of barriers paramount in the future development and facilitation of community gardens in both cities.

2.5 Identifying Barriers

The preceding sections have provided a fundamentally optimistic outlook on urban agriculture. However, even with such an idealized discourse, projects continue to encounter a number of barriers during their implementation and successful facilitation. The following section will briefly discuss the barriers that have been identified throughout academic literature. The barriers have been logically categorized into four realms; land and planning, financial barriers, social issues and organizational challenges. The category of land and planning encompasses all of the barriers which discuss regulations, resources and land-use. The financial section discusses those barriers linked to the monetary concerns. Further, social issues have been outlined to include all obstacles encountered at a societal level; from health, to community support and various other public concerns. Lastly, the section regarding organizational barriers will discuss the identified issues of management and structure within urban agriculture projects. The barriers discussed in this chapter have been identified on numerous scales of urban agriculture, not just community gardens, but because there is not a plethora of literature available on the specific topic the lens must be broadened for the purposes of this literature review. However, the following discussion is limited to barriers identified in the developed world, as that is where the research of this paper will take place. The broader domain of urban agriculture barriers as a whole, also help to paint a more complete picture of this when considering what types of hurdles are confronted by projects in this field.

2.5.1 Land and Planning

The most common barriers identified in previous literature stem from the realm of land and planning. Restrictive urban policies and specific land-use often prevent urban agricultural projects from materializes within the bounds of the city (de Zeeuw, 2004, Castillo et al., 2013). The access to suitable land is limited and the competition for the space is often very high (Lovell, 2010, Castillo et al., 2013). Securing such the tenure of such land for anything more than temporary use also poses a problem, as urban agriculture is rarely considered as a highly productive use of land in the urban environment (de Zeeuw, 2004; Guitart et al., 2012). Leases are also often only temporary because otherwise the projects would require a change in the land-use ordinances, which presents a complicated maze of bureaucracy rarely understood by project initiators ( Castillo et al., 2013). Secondary to land-use, the resources available for urban agriculture is also limited. Access to water is cited as a key impediment faced by many projects (Guitartet et al., 2012; Castillo et al., 2013). Lastly, ensuring soil quality which is suitable for horticultural and vegetable growth is a problem presented by the urban environment. Pollution of the air and soil is much more common here than in the traditional rural setting of agriculture, and poses a challenge to successful production (Guitart et al., 2012; Saed, 2012). Urban agriculture requires space, and the density of cities does not always present an accommodating environment for the development of these projects.

2.5.2 Financial

When considering the development of any project, finances are an integral aspect of their initiation. For urban agriculture, finance is required for the implementation as well as the ongoing maintenance of the projects. The initial

costs are high and the notation of a limited or lack of access to funding is a common theme identified by authors (de Zeeuw, 2004; Guitart et al., 2012; Castillo et al., 2013; Cabannes, 2012). Urban agriculture projects often must be self-financed, leaving many projects to hang in the balance between whether or not the initiators can afford them (Cabannes, 2012). Another financial impediment is finding affordable insurance for projects that will satisfy all of its needs ( Castillo et al., 2013; Wang and Nevius, 2013). It was noted in a one study that most types of insurance are not structured to meet all the requirement of urban agriculture projects. With specific regard to insurance for community gardens, the high premiums of general liability put strict budgetary constraints on the project diminishing their potential development spending plans (Wang and Nevius, 2013, p. 327). When combining these financial barriers with those regarding land and planning it seems surprising that projects still manage to develop.

2.5.3 Social

The social environment in which urban agriculture projects develop presents a number of frequently discussed barriers. For starters, there are high risks of theft and security issues presented in the urban context where projects often occupy public space, and can be located in challenging neighbourhoods (de Zeeuw, 2004, Guitart et al., 2012). While the security of neighbourhood can present safety issues, the make up of those neighbourhoods themselves can pose an even greater problem. From general neighbourhood complaints and a lack of community support, to issues stemming from cultural differences; the social setting of urban agriculture has proven to be extremely relevant in the successful initiation projects (Guitart et al., 2012; Kato, 2013). The resolutions of cultural issues have been presented as one of the reasons to initiate community garden, but one article notes that in practice this is not necessarily the case. While the urban agricultural movement has carried a tone of inclusiveness, Kato (2013) states that, “[many] practices [are] dominated by white, middle-class supporters while gaining limited participation and support from the minority community” (p.372). An obvious departure from the encouraging discourse presented earlier, and thus proving the attainability of such positive success. Lastly, a lack of support services for urban agriculture is seen to hinder project facilitation (de Zeeuw, 2004; Lovell, 2010). The services that could be increased to minimize the struggle could include training for gardeners, enhanced networks and small enterprise development support (de Zeeuw, 2004; Castillo et al., 2013).

2.5.4 Organizational

Issues with organization and structure are rarely discussed in literature. However, as they have been mentioned sparingly and cannot be constrained within the other three categories, so they must be discussed separately here. The facilitation of urban agriculture projects requires an extensive set of skills that are not always possessed by the people who want to initiate these project; from people skills, to business management and agricultural skills (Lovell, 2010). Also, a lack of understanding agricultural management practices acts as a constraint, especially when combined with the urban environment (de Zeeuw, 2004). Adding the inexperience of farmers and gardeners in creating business plans results in an unclear direction of the project (Cabannes, 2012). This inadequate skill set leads to mislead, poorly administrated projects which can be detrimental to their success. When considering community garden specific barriers in the realm of organization, one theoretical study noted that

some gardens may experience issues regarding waiting lists, but they do not expand on this research (Guitart et al., 2012). Seemingly, the barriers of the other three categories are much more commonly identified by the existing research, but regardless of how minimal, these organizational troubles do exist.

29

The London Investigation

3. The London Investigation

London earmarked the topic of food planning with high importance as it emerged in the early 2000s in discussions regarding of the future of cities around the globe. When the Mayor of London launched The London Food Strategy it was not a surprise, but an inevitability as many important authors of food planning originated in the UK. While seemly a top-down mayoral initiative, this action was not executed wholly by top-down planning. An NGO called Sustain, one of the most respected food policy campaign groups in the country, were the initiator and successful lobbyist of the mayor’s office to create such a plan. Sustain also proved to be instrumental in the consultation and creation of the strategy (Morgan, 2009; Sustainweb.org, 2014). One of the Sustain coordinators, Ben Reynolds, is very optimistic about the food strategy and the mayor’s commitment to seeing it through (Morgan, 2009, p. 346). The London Food Strategy was released in 2006 and since then London has proven their commitment to their food conscientiousness with the creation of the London Food Board. The board serves as an advisory group made up of independent food policy organizations, like Sustain and other experts and functions as an overseer the implementation process of The London Food Strategy (london.gov.uk, 2014). There are many positive food related initiatives underway in London; these include a fisheries initiative titled ‘Sustainable Fish City’ and myriad of programmes under the London Food Link umbrella. One partnership initiative, Capital Growth, planted under the London Food Link, was aimed specifically at the promotion of urban agriculture (Morgan, 2009; Sustainweb.org, 2014).

Capital Growth was introduced in 2008 with the purpose to increase the amount of space being used for growing food in London. The aim of the initiative was also to foster new knowledge within the society and for the citizens to grow their own food confidently. The programme intended to create 2,012 new community growing spaces for food in London before the end of the city’s olympic year, 2012. This goal was successfully reached and exceeded, with 2,024 current membership of the Capital Growth initiative (Capital Growth, 2013). It was important that these spaces be centred around communities because these projects are not only beneficial to the food system, but also to the general area in which they are developed. Community gardens can be helpful in enhancing both the physical and mental health of their members and the surrounding community (Farmgarden.org.uk. 2014). Capital Growth helped to foster an abundance of community garden projects across the city, but that is not to say that it eliminated all of the barriers faced by the project coordinators themselves.

3.1 The Community Gardens

The sample selection of community gardens in London was aimed to be diverse in order to avoid homogenous interview results. Initially, a widespread variety of coordinators were contacted, but due to response rates the importance of the samples diversity had to shift. Weight fell more heavily in the types of projects rather than their location. The following gardens vary in size, goals, style and age, which provided a suitable range of diversity. Variation within the sample was an important aspect of the case. The research itself is centred around the perceptions of community garden coordinators and initiators, and the aim is not to reach generalization, but to gain a fuller understanding of the encountered barriers. The goal is to learn from their experiences and inform a variety of community garden projects and planners alike.

Figure 1: Map of London community garden locations:

The Glengall Wharf Community Garden is located in North Peckham, a neighbourhood in the borough of Southwark. The borough and neighbourhood are growing fast with a population increase of 18% since the 2011 census showing no signs of slowing down. With this fast-paced growth the council aims to increase the safety and sense of community across each neighbourhood, as well as to continuing to support healthy lifestyles for its residents (southwark.gov.uk, 2014). One example of this is demonstrated in the large investment made in upgrading Burges Park. In 2011 the park received a massive multi-million pound makeover, thus opening the door for many new ideas. The plan for the park relied heavily on public consultation. Sue, the subject of this gardens interview, was originally the Chair of the Friends of Burges Park board, and during meetings regarding the plan it became clear to her that the community had hopes that an aspect of the new park would involve food growing. Sue had the idea to initiate a community garden in one derelict corner of the park and became involved with the food steering group within the community. They began talks with the Southwark Council about taking control of this patch of land to build up a community garden, and the council agreed almost immediately. The land was signed over to the group with a 5-year license and no rent. The council also assisted by subsidizing their first grant application and helped to find mentorship from another organization that could mentor them in the writing of their first official funding bid. This bid was a success and the