The role of place making in a citizen initiated community garden. A case-study about the experiences of volunteers and visitors of the horicultural garden Warmoes

(1)

The role of place making in a citizen initiated

community garden

A case-study about the experiences of volunteers and visitors of the

horticultural garden Warmoes

Master thesis Human Geography

Radboud University Nijmegen

(2)

(3)

iii

The role of place making in a citizen initiated

community garden

A case-study about the experiences of volunteers and visitors of the

horticultural garden Warmoes

Lisanne Cloin

Student number; s4372506

Master thesis Human Geography

Radboud University Nijmegen

Urban and cultural geography

Thesis supervisor: Dr. R. Pijpers

Contact: lisannecloin@gmail.com

(4)

(5)

v

Preface

This research is done within the context of the Master thesis Human Geography, to finish the Master program Urban and Cultural Geography at the Nijmegen School of Management of the Radboud University. I enjoyed working at the end result that is now in front of you. To be able to conduct this research, I have joined the group of volunteers who maintain the historic horticultural garden ´Warmoes´ in Lent together. This was a very nice experience that taught me a lot. Not only did I learn a lot in the area of my research, but also about the care for growing fruit and vegetables and about the history of the community garden and Lent. I got to know a side of me that I had not yet

discovered before I started this research. I have met a lot of nice people at the garden, who were all very helpful, which made me feel at home at the garden immediately. I would like to thank all the volunteers of the historic horticultural garden Warmoes a lot for their input during my research. While conducting my research, I have been supervised by Roos Pijpers from the university and I have gratefully used her guidance and feedback, which taught me a lot. Furthermore, I would like to thank the visitors of Warmoes, the supervisor of ´Pluk de Vruchten´ and the owners of restaurant ‘PUUR’ for their cooperation with this research. I also want to thank my boyfriend and friends for all their support and encouraging words. This master thesis is the end of a very interesting study program, on which I look back with a lot of joy.

I hope you will enjoy reading this report! Lisanne Cloïn,

Nijmegen, January 2017

(6)

vi

Executive summary

This research is about place making in a community garden in the municipality of Nijmegen. In the Netherlands, initiatives in the field of urban agriculture, like community gardens, are an emerging trend (Veen, 2015, p. 17), which is interesting to look at in more detail, because of the developments in the field of active citizenship. The Dutch government wants to transform the welfare state into a participatory society in which active citizenship is encouraged and citizens are expected to take more responsibility for their living environment (Veen, 2015). Community gardens fit into the discourse around the participatory society, because they are an example of volunteers taking responsibility for their own living environment (Veen, 2015). These citizen initiatives in the spatial environment contribute to the spatial quality of these places (Project for Public Spaces, n.d). In doing so, citizens initiatives often contribute to place making, although it is not the main goal of the work in the garden. The goal of this master thesis is to investigate the citizen initiated community garden Warmoes through the lens of place and place making by looking at the relation between people and place. The following is the research objective;

“The aim of this research is to gain knowledge in how place making occurs and is experienced in a community garden, by conducting qualitative research on sense of place and sense of community by observing and interviewing participants and visitors of a community garden, to contribute to the debate on citizen participation and to formulate a meaningful intervention about how local governments should approach community gardens.”

For this study, I used theory on place making, sense of place and sense of community. Place making can be defined as the total of identifying, assigning, deciding, designing, building, using, interpreting and remembering of places (Gieryn, 2000, p. 468) How users experience the place is examined on the basis of the concepts of sense of place and sense of community. The concept of sense of place can be used to investigate the feelings of belonging to a place and giving meaning to a place (Haywood, 2014), while the concept sense of community can be used to investigate the extent to which people feel part of a community (MacMillan & Chavis, 1986). Earlier research showed the connections between sense of place and sense of community and citizen participation, upon which is continued in this study.

For this qualitative research I have done an in depth single case study at the community garden ‘Warmoes’ over a period of 6 months. Historical garden Warmoes is a horticultural garden of 1,4 acres, with a large collection of old fruit-, vegetable- and plant varieties and species. A group of volunteers brought together under a foundation, maintain the community garden. Through

participant observations and semi-structured interviews place making at the community garden and how this influences the sense of place and sense of community of people is researched. In addition, the effect of volunteering in, using or visiting a community garden on participation in and outside the garden is investigated.

Place making is both on a small scale as on a large scale recognisable at the garden. All aspects of place making are more or less recognisable at the garden. This research showed that the garden attracts many people, with a lot of different motivations and reasons, because the garden includes a lot of different elements and activities. Because of that there is space for people to feel at home and to make a piece of the garden their own. Therefore people experience a sense of place. This research has shown that sense of place in the garden is strongly linked to sense of community. Although, not everybody experiences an equally strong sense of community. Some volunteers feel a

(7)

vii strong connection with the group, while others do not really experience it that way. The ones who feel a strong connection, link this to the common denominator that the volunteers have, namely the care for the green in the garden. From this research it can be concluded that the elements that are part of sense of community are more or less observable in the garden.

This research shows that place making can be seen as an important condition for citizen participation. The sense of place and sense of community that people experience at the garden arise because users of the garden are involved in het process of place making. The feeling of connection with the garden that arises by place making, among other things lead to the wish to fight for the preservation of the garden. The organisation of volunteers that maintains the garden is a good example of citizen participation in the own living environment. The maintenance of the garden is a lot of work, for which the volunteers generally feel very responsible. Taking on more voluntary work is often not possible because people have to spend time to make a living. This shows that time and money are important conditions for volunteers to be involved in (further) citizen participation. Although the community garden is a place where a lot happens in the field of citizen participation it cannot be concluded from this research that place making in the community garden causes further citizen participation by visitors or volunteers outside the garden. Visitors for example enjoy coming to the garden, but also explain that they do not have a lot of time and that they do not enjoy the idea of becoming a volunteer for example. Visitors are thus not per se inspired to more active citizenship by the community garden.

The community garden is an attraction for those who think that green spaces and healthy food are important. This research has shown that the process of place making plays an important role in the formation of sense of place and sense of community. The various elements are

intertwined and reinforce each other too. The cultural and historical value of the garden seems to be of great importance for the success of citizen participation at this location. Community gardens can be seen as places through which citizens protect what they find important. In these community gardens there can be different parties who claim the land, which can lead to a challenge of dominant power relations by citizens. For the municipalities that want to stimulate citizen participation and active citizenship, it is thus interesting to protect and support places that already have a certain value that people find important. The results of this research are also in line with Evelien Tonkens’ warning in her articles that the government has to be careful that it is not expecting too much of its citizens (Tonkens & Wilde, 2013). Many people around the community garden contribute their bit in the field of active citizenship.

With regard to local governments, several aspects are worth paying attention to. In order to stimulate citizen participation, it is interesting for local governments to protect and stimulate places where citizen participation already occurs. The government could protect and stimulate citizen initiatives by consulting with the organisation of the citizen initiative and could then find out how the government could facilitate. Besides, the government should also be more aware and show more appreciation for certain citizen initiatives. Another interesting recommendation is to stimulate place making in different places in the city. This could be places with certain values that are already appreciated by citizens and that the municipality wants to protect and preserve. Another important point of attention is to question how much a local government should expect from citizens

concerning active citizenship. With regard to the organization of the historical garden Warmoes, recommendation can be done as well. It is very important that the organisation tries to include the people involved (volunteers, stakeholders, visitors) in decision making processes as much as possible. Finally, there are also written recommendations for further scientific research.

(8)

viii

List of figures and tables

Figure 2: A Volunteer at work at the place with unheated low greenhouses V

Figure 2: Conceptual model 19

Figure 3: Location of the garden Warmoes in Lent 22

Figure 4: Here I am interviewing visitors on 16 July 2016 25

Figure 5: A volunteer from the educationteam gives a tour around the old cold frames 32

Figure 6: The sales stall at the garden during the harvest days 33

Figure 7: Visitors sitting between the fruit trees in the garden 34 Figure 8: The vegetable garden of the elementary school 't Talent between the trees 34

Figure 9: The vegetable garden of ‘Pluk de Vruchten’ 34

Figure 10: Planned housing construction Waalsprong 35

Figure 11: Historical shape of the garden 36

Figure 12: Current and future situation Warmoes 37

Figure 13: A volunteer is busy pulling weeds at the garden 43

Figure 14: The terrace among the trees in the orchard 46

Figure 15: Children playing between the trees 47

Figure 16: Guided tour at the garden 49

Figure 17: The cold frames covered with windows function as greenhouses 50

Figure 18: Dining together in the garden 57

Table 1: Overview of the factors and items that contribute to sense of place 15

Table 2: Operationalisation sense of place 28

Table 3: Operationalisation sense of community 29

Table 4: Observation scheme sense of place 29-30

Table 3: Observation scheme sense of community 31

(11)

1

1. Introduction

1.1 Project framework

In recent years the government shows a growing interest in residents initiatives (Ahmic, 2013, p. 2) (Dam, Salverda, & During, 2011, p. 9). Bakker, Denters, Oude Vrielink and Klok (2012, p. 397) define a citizen initiative as the “collective act, aimed at the creation of public goods or services (for example with regard to the quality of life and safety) in the street, neighbourhood or city, where the citizens themselves decide on the goals and resources of their project and in which the local authorities have a supporting or facilitating role”. With these residents initiatives the citizens try to respond to social problems in their own neighbourhoods (Slabbekoorn, 2013, p. 25).

Seen from the government, the rise of residents initiatives connects well with the search for another form of cooperation with the other stakeholders in society. Because of globalization,

technological innovation and the economic crisis (Gemeente Nijmegen, 2012a), the government tries to save money and to limit access to facilities (Tonkens & Wilde, 2013, p. 15). This is also known as the shift from government to governance. This transition means a slow shift of social control

strategies. The government initially fulfilled an important leading role, but this strong guiding role of the government is decreasing and the government tries to pass it on to other stakeholders, such as companies, non-governmental organizations and citizens (Leroy & Driessen, 2007, p. 45). Therefore the concept of active citizenship is becoming more and more prominent in government policy (WRR, 2012). Active citizenship is often referred to as the third form of citizen participation in policy about citizen participation. Within this form of citizen participation, the relationship between government and citizens is reversed: the civil society initiates while the government participates (Lenos, Sturm, & Vis, 2006). For the government active citizenship means a citizen who is self-reliant and is taking responsibility for one's own life, for the own living environment and for society (Wijdeven, 2012). In particular, policymakers and directors expect many benefits in the field of social issues when there would be more active citizenship. In recent years, the idea arises that the middle class also can or should take over tasks of the government (Uitermark & Beek, 2010). In addition, since the 1990s, for example, housing associations pass the ball more often to the citizen too in case of problems at neighbourhood level. Citizens are put at the heart of neighbourhood development. This way a local approach is developed in order to activate residents to take up a greater involvement and

responsibility for the environment (Wijdeven, 2012, pp. 9, 12). The government has its hopes on active citizenship, but cannot force the citizen for active participation in society. The government can only invite and seduce citizens and can in particular try to get in the minds of citizens (Tonkens & Wilde, 2013, p. 17), but also to inspire, encourage and facilitate citizens initiatives. For example by providing a budget and by offering help and attention from officials and professionals of local authorities, welfare institutions and housing corporations (Wilde & Tonkens, 2013). But citizens do not seem to participate easily. With participation brokers, animators and campaigns, residents are invited and mobilized to get to know each other and to organise activities. With grants, participation coaches, all sorts of other brokers and participation instruments, attempts are made to enable residents to organize and deploy (Uitermark & Beek, 2010).

These residents initiatives can vary from initiatives to address issues in health care, in order to promote social cohesion and quality of life in the districts, to stimulate renewable energy but also to manage the public space. An example is the establishment of a cooperation by residents from the

(12)

2 city of Nijmegen for the construction of their own wind farm (Windpark Nijmegen-betuwe, n.d). Another example that occurs in various places in cities, as in the centre of Nijmegen, is residents transforming public green (often small plots), that is the property of the local government, into vegetable gardens. An interesting development which is associated with the arising of community gardens which are managed by residents. There is no clear definition of community gardens (Veen, 2015; Guitart, Pickering, & Byrne, 2012), because they differ in size, but also because the people that are involved and the appearance of the community gardens vary (Rosol, 2012). Community gardens appear in the shape of a landscaped park, organic vegetable garden or a brown field with

spontaneous vegetation (Rosol, 2012). In her work, Veen (2015, p. 17) defines a community garden as “a plot of land in urban area, cultivated either communally or individually by a group of people from the direct neighbourhood or the wider city, or which urbanites are involved in other ways than gardening, and to which there is a collective element”. This definition is broadly formulated but clearly indicates that it is about gardens that are managed by the local community. Because of that, the definition is very useful for this investigation. According to Rosol (2012), all community gardens have in common that they do not look like public green spaces that are the property of the local government, but that they are more accessible for visitors than the well-known, more private allotment gardens (Rosol, 2012, p. 243).

In the USA there are a lot of community gardens in big cities as New York and Boston (Ghose & Pettygrove, 2014) (Rosol, 2012). In the Netherlands, initiatives in the field of urban agriculture, like community gardens, are an emerging trend (Veen, 2015, p. 17), which is interesting to look at in more detail, because of the developments in the field of active citizenship. “Urban community gardens have been conceptualized as sites of citizen participation and grassroots control that enable residents to shape the forms and meanings of urban landscapes “ (Ghose & Pettygrove, 2014, p. 1096). These citizen initiatives in the spatial environment contribute to the spatial quality of these places (Project for Public Spaces, n.d). In doing so, citizens initiatives often contribute to place

making, although it is not the main goal of the work in the garden. Wyckhoff (2014, p. 2) argues place making is “the process of creating quality places that people want to live, work, play and learn in”. In recent years more and more attention is given to place making, especially in the USA where place making is applied to public areas. The user of these places must be placed at the centre of attention, and if possible should be involved in the process of place making as much as possible (Project for public spaces, n.d.).

From the literature about place making, it has become clear that a place making project enlarges the feeling of belonging to a place (Project for Public Spaces, n.d). What makes a place successful and why people like to use a certain place is also investigated (Project for public spaces, n.d.). According to (Wyckoff, 2014), places that people care about and like to be in, have a strong sense of place. When people are more involved and feel more connected to their neighbourhood, this means that there is a strong sense of place, and if residents also feel part of a community, there is also a sense of community. According to the literature, both concepts affect the participation of inhabitants in a neighbourhood (Manzo & Perkins, 2006).

The goal of this master thesis is to investigate a community garden through the lens of place and place making. By looking at the relation between people and place by giving volunteers and visitors the opportunity to describe their experiences at the garden in their own words. This way, insight in both the manner in which place making occurs at the garden can be found, as well as the meaning of the garden for its users. Because it emerges from several sources that sense of place and sense of community have an influence on citizen participation, this is an interesting approach to the

(13)

3 research, because of the current discourse of the participation society. I did research on the process of place making and the feelings of sense of place and the sense of community experienced by those involved at the community garden. And tried to find out in what way place making at the community garden influences the feelings of sense of place and sense of community and visitors of the garden think of active citizenship and citizen participation. The emphasis was on the sense of responsibility for, and willingness to engage in the own living environment. Within this investigation I will focus on a community garden in the Netherlands in the city of Nijmegen. With this research I aim to increase the knowledge about place making in community gardens and to contribute to the debate on citizen participation within a community garden. Using the results, I formulated recommendations about how local governments should approach community gardens.

1.2 Research aim

The aim of this research is to gain knowledge in how place making occurs and is experienced in a community garden, by conducting qualitative research on sense of place and sense of community by observing and interviewing participants and visitors of a community garden, to contribute to the debate on citizen participation and to formulate a meaningful intervention about how local governments should approach community gardens.

By doing research based on the concepts of sense of place and sense of community it is possible to create an image of the experience of users of the community garden. By investigating the experience of community gardeners, I can gain insight in place making at the community garden. By doing research by means of participant-observations and interviews, it is possible to provide an image of what the garden means for users and why people are so committed to these places. Thereby, I zoom in on the behaviour of users at the garden, but I also ask about and listen to the thoughts and opinions of the users. This produces a lot of useful information and insights about the way a citizen initiated community garden uses its space and the role that a certain place has in the process of place making. From this information important preconditions can be formulated for citizen participation. The goal is, as described above, to draw overarching conclusions aimed at a contribution to the debate around citizen initiatives, with as a result useful intervention on the approach to community gardens.

Of course the reasons for residents whether or not to join in a residents initiative or to participate in the own living environment not only depends on their sense of place and sense of community in a place. Other external reasons also may have an effect in this case. This research builds on previous studies that have indicated that place attachment and sense of community affect civic activity (Manzo & Perkins, 2006) and that little research has been done yet about the role of place in shaping social behaviour (Paulsen, 2004, p. 246; Lupi, 2008). Research in this area is of great importance to be able to understand the influence of place. This is the reason why this research focuses on the terms sense of place and sense of community and external factors are therefore excluded as much as possible.

(14)

4

1.3 Research questions

Main question:

How does being a volunteer at a community garden or visiting a community garden contribute to place making and the development of sense of place and sense of community and how does this relate to the debate about citizen participation?

Sub questions:

 How does place making occur in the community garden?

 How does volunteering in or visiting a community garden influence the way participants and visitors experience the place (sense of place)?

 How does volunteering in or using a community garden influence the ‘sense of community’ amongst the participants and visitors?

 How does place making in the community garden contribute to active citizenship?  How are the findings of this research on place making at community gardens applicable in

the debate about citizen initiatives/citizen participation?

1.4 Scientific & societal relevance

This research has a social relevance for policy makers and administrators of local governments. If the government keeps focusing on resident initiatives in the future, it can be assumed that resident initiatives will become politically more important during the coming years. The government hopes that resident initiatives can enable the municipality in certain areas, for example in the public space, to leave certain municipal tasks to residents (Ahmic, 2013, p. 3). Generally speaking, there is limited attention to place related initiatives in the Netherlands (Cloin, 2014), while in other countries like the USA more attention is paid to this kind of initiatives (Rosol, 2012; Ghose & Pettygrove, 2014; Guitart, Pickering, & Byrne, 2012). For example, several investigations into the various benefits of these place related, green initiatives have been conducted (Guitart, Pickering, & Byrne, 2012) and the

government has looked at how these initiatives can be stimulated (Gemeente Nijmegen, 2012a) (Gemeente Nijmegen, 2012b). More knowledge about people’s attachment to place and people’s sense of community will lead to more understanding concerning the social behaviour of people (Paulsen, 2004) and possibly also concerning active citizenship. Research indicates that a better attachment to place by community members is very important in creating a better understanding about the way people accept changes in the neighbourhood (Manzo & Perkins, 2006, p. 341). When the Dutch government is interested in stimulating place related initiatives, it is important to pay more attention to these initiatives and to have a better understanding of attachment to place by community members. The results from this study about the influence that place and

correspondingly, sense of place and sense of community has on active citizenship and citizen participation in citizen initiated community gardens are useful in creating more understanding in this area. The recommendations from this study can be used by the local government in addressing community gardens and the drafting of municipal policy in the future.

This research will also be a scientific contribution because it will complement existing

knowledge and insight on the influence of the concepts of sense of place and sense of community on active citizenship. According to Paulsen (2004, p. 246) research has still hardly been done about the role of place in shaping social behaviour. The reason that not much analysis has been done on the importance of place attachment and sense of place in combination with community planning and

(15)

5 development processes has to do with too little cooperation between scientific disciplines and because of differences in perspective across these disciplines (Manzo & Perkins, 2006, p. 347). This while almost no one claims that place is not important in research on community planning and development processes.

“Environmental psychologists who study place attachment and identity often focus on individual experiences and meaning and less frequently examine the collective nature of these phenomena. Community psychologists address community development, empowerment, and the social capital created by aggregates of people, but focus less on individual experience or place-based theories. Planners and community designers, while focusing on place, tend to examine neighbourhood-level dynamics and macro-structural forces - for example, the political-economy – and do not often look at personal experiences of place and attachments (Manzo & Perkins, 2006, p. 347)”.

All of this information together can give a much more complete picture of how to create and develop successful communities (Manzo & Perkins, 2006). In addition, you could say that this is an innovative research because a link is created between resident initiatives, community gardens and place making within this study. Research in the field of place making is often focused on public space (Project for Public Spaces, n.d). It is striking that no attention is paid to the influence that place has on the preservation of a citizen initiative. The phenomenon of a citizen initiative is actually often viewed from the question how it should be organized, by looking for answers on questions about how the government should stimulate these activities. This approach however often ignores the fact that a citizen initiated community garden actually is a form of place making and that residents give meaning to a place by starting or maintaining a citizen initiative there. From a human geographical point of view, it is interesting to look at the citizen initiative from this perspective, because this perspective does not focus on achieving a good organisation of citizen initiatives, but focuses on giving meaning to space.

This research will also complement the scientific literature in the field of community gardens in a Dutch context. From the literature review it also became clear that there is not much

information available about community gardens in the Netherlands. The studies conducted in the area of community gardens were focused on community gardens and social cohesion (Veen, 2015) (Veen, Bock, Berg, Visser, & Wiskerke, 2015) and allotment gardens and health (Berg, Winsum-Westra, Vries, & Dillen, 2010). According to Lupi (2008) there is not much attention in the

Netherlands yet for what a citizens initiative in the (public) space does with the meaning that people give to a place. In addition, the Dutch context differs in many respects form the American context. As has been appointed above, there is much interest for community gardens in de USA. Most of the English scientific literature is from the USA (Guitart, Pickering, & Byrne, 2012, p. 364) and is based on the north American context (Veen, 2015). Differences between the Dutch and American context are for instance the presence of large cities with ghettos and attendant problems. In American cities fresh food from the country is not always available, a situation which is also referred to as food deserts. A phenomenon that doesn’t exist in Dutch cities. This makes that promoters have other reasons to start a community garden and the benefits and the way people make use of the gardens will likely differ (Veen, 2015). Besides, the experiences of people who use the community gardens are underexposed in a lot of researches. "There has been a lack of opportunities for those involved to describe their experiences in their own terms. As a result we have a poor understanding of what is important about community gardens in the opinions of those directly involved, what motivates them

(16)

6 and how the benefits they note are achieved – that is what they do and how it feels” (Pitt, 2013, p. 35). Because of that, not much is known about what moves people to stay involved (Pitt, 2013, p. 23).

1.5 Outline of this thesis

This thesis consists of eight chapters. In chapter 2 the theoretical framework is explained, in which I take a closer look at community gardens as spaces of place making. Next the important concepts of place making, sense of place and sense of community are elaborated on. At the end of the

theoretical framework, the conceptual model is explained. In chapter 3 I explain the methodology that is applied in this research. This chapter also includes the operationalisationschemes of the concepts of sense of place and sense of community. Next, in chapter 4, I first provide background information on the case study, after which the next paragraph is about the spatial developments in the area that have influence on the community garden. Then, in chapter 5, the results of the research are shown, ordered by the sub questions of this research. First, the way place making occurs in the community garden is described and then the results about sense of place and sense of community are discussed. The last paragraph of this chapter is about the results about the connection between place making in a community garden and citizen participation. This is all described in a storytelling narrative, in which much attention is paid at the experiences of users of the community garden. In chapter 6 the main research question is answered, which leads to the recommendations that are written down in chapter 7. Finally, chapter 8 provides a reflection on the research. In Appendix 1, a list is included of the respondent’s general characteristics linked to a respondent number. Appendix 2 includes the interview guide that is used while doing the semi-structured interviews.

(17)

7

2. Place making in theory and practice

This chapter will discuss the various concepts that are of importance in this research. The first paragraph gives a review of the literature about community gardens and how they have been

understood as spaces of place making. In this paragraph will be explained how the concepts of citizen initiatives, community gardens and place making are connected to each other. In the next paragraph the process and the definition of place making are explained. Here it is made clear that users of places that are created by the process of place making experience a certain connection with a place, which can be explained with the concept of sense of place. Sense of place is mostly experienced in conjunction with sense of community. Next, in paragraph 2.3, a theoretical elaboration on the concept of sense of place is given from which a theoretical framework is formed with a list of factors that contribute to the arising of sense of place. In paragraph 2.4 the same is done for the concept of sense of community. This paragraph concludes with a theoretical framework as well, which serves as a basis for the research. From this knowledge, an observation scheme is made in chapter 3, which will serve as guidance for conducting this research. The conceptual model at the end of this chapter provides an overview of the various concepts that are important in this research and it briefly explains how this research is approached and in what way the various concepts can be used to find answers on the formulated research questions.

2.1 Community gardens as spaces of place making

In the USA, but also in other countries, community gardens are growing in popularity (Pudup, 2008). Often there are many different initiators or groups involved such as schools, prisons, youth, elderly, hospitals, and local residents of neighbourhoods (Pudup, 2008). “Generally the term ‘community garden’ refers to ‘open spaces which are managed and operated by members of the local community in which food or flowers are cultivated’” (Guitart, Pickering, & Byrne, 2012; Pudup, 2008). According to research performed by Guitart et al. (2012) all of the gardens were used for growing food, flowers or native vegetation. According to Veen (2015) “the concept of community gardens is connected to that of urban agriculture, defined as food production in urban areas”. Urban agriculture is also a visible trend in the Netherlands. In most Dutch cities initiatives related to food production, including community gardens, have sprung up (Veen, 2015). In the Netherlands these initiatives have been started also by very different initiators such as citizens, housing corporations, local governments, entrepreneurs, artists and community workers (Veen, 2015, p. 17).What is striking is that no community garden is the same (Guitart, Pickering, & Byrne, 2012; Veen, 2015). Community gardens in the USA were for a long time popular to grow food in cities in particular (Guitart, Pickering, & Byrne, 2012). “Community gardens vary in several ways: they are cultivated by different kinds of communities in various locations, entail individual or communal plots and the extent of active participation (e.g. gardening) differs” (Veen, Bock, Berg, Visser, & Wiskerke, 2015). Community gardens are generally seen as gardens which are communally cultivated by a group of people from the direct neighbourhood or the wider city (Veen, 2015). This way community gardens vary widely and for example a backyard garden that is privately managed by a family is also a community garden (Guitart, Pickering, & Byrne, 2012). Some researchers think differently about which variations in gardens can be called community gardens and which ones cannot. There are researchers who think that allotment gardens, for example, are not part of community gardens because the available land in these gardens is often split up in separate gardens that are meant for individual use (Firth, Maye, & Pearson, 2011), while others think differently because they have a broader view on the term

(18)

8 community gardens, so that it covers more different types of gardens (Berg, Winsum-Westra, Vries, & Dillen, 2010; Veen, 2015).

Community gardens can be seen as a form of a citizen initiative in the public space because they are examples of residents taking initiative to organise collective activities by for example changing a plot of land into a garden and maintaining it together (Veen, 2015, p. 20). In the Netherlands more attention is given to citizen participation in the form of citizen initiatives. Here, citizen initiatives which focus on taking care of each other are given more attention though than citizen initiatives which focus on taking care of the living environment, such as citizen initiatives in public space (Cloin, 2014).

In the United States an impressive amount of information is available on community gardens, because a lot of research is done on the subject (Rosol, 2012; Ghose & Pettygrove, 2014), while there is not much information from researches on community gardens in the Dutch context (Veen, 2015). Many articles are published about research on community gardens in North America. Most of these articles are about community gardens in cities in the United States with a focus on cities in the states of New York and California (Guitart, Pickering, & Byrne, 2012, pp. 365,366). “Previous research on community gardening has had a strong focus on food production, especially in the North American context, and has stressed its social, ecological and economic value and emancipatory potentials” (Rosol, 2012, pp. 239 - 240). There is renewed attention for community gardens because of the rising concerns about the quality and costs of food. These food security issues arise because of the

globalisation and the accelerated urbanisation, that cause less and less land to be available for agricultural use in and around cities (Guitart, Pickering, & Byrne, 2012, p. 364). Urban community gardens in the USA are also used as strategies to fight against the effects of neoliberalisation on the food system (Ghose & Pettygrove, 2014). Research in America has shown that the community gardens on the one hand contribute to the neo-liberal way of thinking of the Government, because they are an example of active citizenship at which the government aims. On the other hand

community gardens are also an expression of protest against the urban food insecurity, the poor quality of the environment and the political marginalization of urban minority populations (Ghose & Pettygrove, 2014, p. 1092). “They are conceived as spaces through which citizens can challenge dominant power relations and claim rights to the city” (Ghose & Pettygrove, 2014, p. 1092). Some of these points mentioned above belong to one of the many benefits of community gardens. Other frequently mentioned benefits of community gardens are; the ability to grow food in cities,

community building, education and promoting health (Guitart, Pickering, & Byrne, 2012). But in the diversity of literature about community gardens there is also information about access to fresh and safe foods, mental as well as physical health, reduced crime or increased safety, environmental sustainability, improving social cohesion, cultural heritage, life satisfaction and increased biodiversity (Guitart, Pickering, & Byrne, 2012, p. 365). In addition, a majority of the studies focuses on social concerns such as social capital, gender roles and quality of life (Guitart, Pickering, & Byrne, 2012, p. 366).In general a lot of research about community gardens focuses on community gardens in low income neighbourhoods which are inhabited by residents that have diverse cultural backgrounds (Guitart, Pickering, & Byrne, 2012). A single investigation focuses more on the effect of the development of community gardens on the quality of public urban green spaces (Fors, Molin, Murphy, & Bosch, 2014). A lot of research has been done on the different motivations to start a community garden, the social and economic contexts shaping these motivation, and the various outcomes of these practices (Drake & Lawson, 2015, p. 244). Some articles discuss the challenges that community gardens face (Drake & Lawson, 2015). Wherein the insecurity of future land access

(19)

9 emerged as the biggest stumbling block (Guitart, Pickering, & Byrne, 2012, p. 368). In terms of

influences of community gardens on the neighbourhood, research has been conducted on the effect of community gardens on neighbouring property values (Voicu & Been, 2008). Research has also been carried out on the nature and construction of community in urban community gardens and the way this benefits their local communities. The results from the case study show how community gardens contributed to bonding, bridging and linking social capital and therefore lead to building cohesion and vitality in a community (Firth, Maye, & Pearson, 2011, p. 555). A lot of community garden literature points out how initiatives work to build and encourage a sense of community (Firth, Maye, & Pearson, 2011, p. 557). Collective gardening offers opportunities for residents to meet one and another in a way that fosters relationships and collective identity (Foo, Martin, Wool, & Polsky, 2014, p. 176). “Through constructing and maintaining place in the form of community gardens, groups may enact place-based collective identities and assert claims to space” (Ghose & Pettygrove, 2014, p. 1098). Community gardens contribute to the making of more successful spots in the neighbourhood. As Thompson (2012, p. 165) points out in his chapter “Garden, Parks and Sense of Place” there is a connection between making a garden and making a place. “A quick thought

experiment shows that it is impossible to think of a successful garden without concluding that that is also a successful place” (Thompson, 2012, p. 165). Gardening is sometimes called one of the most intensive forms of place making, which makes it a suitable activity to experience the relationship between people and place (Pitt, 2013). The landscape is formed by all sorts of processes, like economic, social and cultural processes. That way, social developments have a huge impact on the shaping of the landscape (Godefroid, 2006, p. 27). Tim Ingold (2000) developed the concept of taskscape to describe the human activities and influence on the landscape. 'Task' is used for the practical actions that are taken by an 'agent' as a part of daily life. 'Scape' stands for the whole of tasks that influence each other and that way influence the landscape. The human interventions, therefore, have a huge impact on transformations in the landscape (Godefroid, 2006).

Place making is often seen as a mode of regional development that is not based on a spatial design or a plan that was conceived by professionals only, but a way that considers the users of a place first (Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijkrelaties, n.d.) (Project for public spaces, n.d.) (Movisie, 2014) (Rot, 2009). Still, place making is more than a mode of area development. You could argue that place making basically also occurs when local residents start transforming a piece of public space to a garden which they maintain themselves. A lot of literature about place making refers to a method in which area development should take place, however, little research has been done on the process of place making itself. This place making methodology has been developed by Project for Public Spaces and is built up from eleven underlying principles (Project for Public Spaces, n.d). Project for Public Spaces is an organization that has been upgrading the public spaces in cities by means of place making since 1975 (Project for public spaces, n.d.). The working method that a lot of organizations such as Projects for Public Spaces proclaim is clearly focused on cooperation

between the government and users/residents of a place. In this working method, the initiative is with the government and not so much with the residents. The interesting thing about a citizen initiative is, as the name says, that residents take initiative and that residents give meaning to a place, without an incentive from the government. This showing of own initiative indicates that a place does not fit well with the wants and needs of users/residents at that time. Research shows that a large part of the community gardens are started by residents so you also could describe them as resident initiatives. “Respondents noted that 81% of the community gardens created in the past 5 years were initiated from the bottom-up and 19% were started by outside organizations” (Drake & Lawson, 2015, p. 245).

(20)

10 Citizen initiatives are often approached from the perspective of the local or provincial government (Cloin, 2014). For example, by looking at how citizen initiatives can be used to improve the quality of life in a neighbourhood and at the same time create more public support, without having a lot of extra costs for the local government (Dam, Salverda, & During, 2011) (Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, 2013) (Gemeente Nijmegen, 2012b).

2.2 Place making

There are many different definitions of place making. According to Thomas Gieryn place making can be defined as the total of identifying, assigning, deciding, designing, building, using, interpreting and remembering of places (Gieryn, 2000, p. 468). Place making is accompanied by many actors and processes (Lupi, 2009). On the one hand there is the institutional side of place making, as it occurs with governors, planners, designers and developers and on the other hand there is the use and perception of space in people’s daily life (Lupi, 2009, p. 308). Place making is complex, because both historical and present social processes play a role in it (Lupi, 2008).

Wyckoff gives the following definition of place making; “Place making is the process of creating quality places that people want to live, work, play and learn in” (Wyckoff, 2014, p. 2). This place making definition adds another component to the definition of place making of Thomas Gieryn namely adding quality of place, making it something people like to spend time in. According to Wyckoff (2014) places where people care about and like to be in have a strong sense of place.

Place making is possible in large projects in which the Government wants to improve the quality of a place and where locals are directly involved. But place making is also possible on a small scale. According to Project for Public Spaces emotion, sense of belonging and creativity are very important for a successful place making process (Keken, 2011) and the development of communal sense of pride in, and ownership of, their public spaces, is one of the benefits of place making projects in the public space (Project for Public Spaces, n.d).

2.3 Sense of place

People have deep emotional and psychological ties to places because we use these places during their entire lives. These places become a part of who we are, how we define ourselves, which of course is influenced by a lot of complex processes (Convery, Corsane, & Davis, 2012). This process is called sense of place. Sense of place is a term that is used in academic literature to explore the different factors which together define the character of a specific place (Convery, Corsane, & Davis, 2012, p. 2). The term also has been used to stress in which way people experience, use and

understand place. From here the following concepts as ‘place identity’, ‘place attachment’, ‘place dependency’ and ‘insiderness/insidedness’ have been developed (Convery, Corsane, & Davis, 2012).

It is not easy to define the term sense of place. This because research has been done on human beings and spatial settings from different research angles and different scientific disciplines. Despite that sense of place is a very broad term of which scientists think differently, it is a powerful medium for framing the relationship between people, places and events (Convery, Corsane, & Davis, 2012). One of the first who tried to find out the ways in which people attach meaning to place was Yi-Fu Tuan (Keken, 2011). Yu-Fi Tuan explains in his work that a lot of people assume place to be a physical setting, but that the social life makes that space and the objects in this space can be understood by people. Tuan argues that space becomes place when you know the place better and when you give space a certain meaning (Tuan, 1977). Sense of place is for Relph (1976, p. 68) above all the opposite of placelessness as described in his book “Place and placelessness”. Relph argues

(21)

11 that sense of place is a feeling of a place where you are a part of and a feeling of belonging to your place, both as an individual and as a member of a community. Relph also states that people are aware of this without having to think about it, because sense of place is an important source of identity for individuals and thus also for communities (Relph, 1976, pp. 65 - 66). The definition of Rose (1995) is in line with what Relph states. Sense of place is about the way in which identity is connected to a specific place, by the feeling that someone belongs to that spot. That feeling is of course a personal one, but must always be understood in a broader context. Feelings and meanings are formed by social, cultural and economic circumstances (Rose, 1995, p. 89). Today, the term sense of place is used primarily to describe the quality of the environment and the atmosphere of a place (Keken, 2011, p. 119).

Sense of place and citizen participation

In a number of investigations researchers have created a link between sense of place and citizen

participation (also called civic activity). Manzo & Perkins (2006) explain in their article that

community planning literature pays attention to participation and empowerment, but the emotional connection with place is often not addressed. This while our thoughts, feelings and beliefs, about our local communal places influence the way people behave themselves towards such places. The connection that people feel with places influences whether and how we might participate in local planning or for example civic activities (Manzo & Perkins, 2006). “Theory on place attachment and meaning, explored largely in environmental and community psychology, can help us to understand how particular preferences, perceptions, and emotional connections to space relate to community social cohesion, organized participation and community development” (Manzo & Perkins, 2006, p. 336). Research conducted by Brown, Perkins & Brown (2003) confirms that place attachments and

sense of community play a significant role in neighbourhood revitalization projects. The ability and

willingness of residents to do something about the local problems in for example the neighbourhood are influenced by their emotional commitment to the places in their neighbourhood. These affective bonds are very important to the wellbeing of these neighbourhoods (Brown, Perkins, & Brown, 2003), as they can motivate and inspire residents to work to improve and protect places that are meaningful to them (Manzo & Perkins, 2006). Manzo & Perkins (2006) add that the terms place attachment, place identity, and sense of community can create a better understanding of these affective bonds towards neighbourhood spaces which can motivate residents to act together to preserve, protect or improve the places that are important to them and to participate in local planning processes. “And while we still need to learn more about the processes by which place meaning and attachment influence citizen participation and community development efforts, the literature suggests that processes of collective action work better when emotional ties to places and their inhabitants are cultivate” (Manzo & Perkins, 2006, p. 347). Also Lewicka (2005) argues that there is a connection between place attachment, civil participation and social cohesion. It should be mentioned that Lewicka assesses the link between place attachment and civic participation critically in her work (Lewicka, 2005). One of the reasons that she critically looks at the different connections between place attachment and civic participation is that the literature shows some doubt about the positive effects of place attachment on civic participation. That has to do with the fact that more highly educated people join civic activities and that these highly educated people often do not have strong place attachment (Lewicka, 2005).

(22)

12 Measuring sense of place

As it was not easy to define sense of place, it is also not easy to give specifications of concepts subsumed under sense of place. Relph declares in his work that it is almost impossible to analyse the phenomenon sense of place exactly in definable and measurable dimensions (Relph, 1976).Sense of place can be divided in sub concepts such as the above-mentioned place identity, place attachment, place dependency and insiderness/ insidedness (Pretty, Chipuer, & Bramston, 2003, p. 274).

However, the fact is that researchers do not agree with each other about which factors exactly can be seperated within the concepts of sense of place and some researchers mention entirely new factors in their investigations. In addition, there is also a “considerable overlap between factors such as emotional bonds, affiliation, behavioural commitment, satisfaction and belonging which are loosely associated in theoretical descriptions” (Pretty, Chipuer, & Bramston, 2003, p. 274). During his research Kaltenborn (1997) has found out that a range of attributes is important in the development of affective bonds with places. Kaltenborn also stresses that it is difficult to separate the various factors strictly from each other. Kaltenborn writes “Many of the aspects of place attachment are integrated and intertwined” (1997, p. 183).

A review of the literature did not result in a framework for sense of place that is replicable for this study. In order to be able to create an overview of the many different approaches to the concept of sense of place and the various factors that could define this term, I have described and elaborated on the different views of researchers on these concepts. After that, I have looked at which items overlap each other.All factors and items that influence the sense of place of people are brought together in a scheme. The data from this scheme are used for the operationalisation of the concept of sense of place in paragraph 3.6.

Despite that several researchers indicate that it is difficult to dissect the phenomenon sense of place, many have tried to somewhat make a categorisation of the different concepts. According to Eisenhaur, Kannich & Blahna (2000) the term sense of place is a holistic concept. In their research they encounter two main components of sense of place. The first one is the interaction between people and a certain place, for example family and friends which together take part in activities and share traditions. In this way memories are also formed which are connected to the people and the place. The second component is based on feelings about the natural environment which is often characteristic for a certain place (Rose, 1995). Eisenhauer et al. (2000) mention the scenery of the place of sites that are of great value for instance because of their geological background or environmental settings and the wildlife they contain. Therefore it can be concluded that sense of place is a combination between the physical or environmental and the personal and social

interaction in a place (Shamai & Ilatov, 2005, p. 468). “Location itself is not enough to create a sense of place. It emerges from involvement between people, and between people and place” (Pretty, Chipuer, & Bramston, 2003, p. 274).

The literature review has shown that there are different views regarding the implementation of the concepts that should fall within the concept of sense of place. Ideas differ in particular on the interpretation of the term ‘place attachment’. There are researchers who write that sense of place can be split in place attachment, place identity and place dependence in which the different concepts are measured separately from each other as in the empirical tool to measure sense of place

developed by Jorgensen and Stedman (2001). “The idea underlying the multidimensional scale is to break down the sense of place into its parts in order to widen the spectrum of the empirical study of the sense of place concept, and to achieve a better understanding” (Shamai & Ilatov, 2005, p. 470). However, it is important that these dimensions are comprehensive in order to get a good picture of

(23)

13 the term sense of place (Shamai & Ilatov, 2005). In their article Hidalgo & Hernandez (2001) write that consensus has been reached on what the term place attachment exactly contents. “In general, place attachment is defined as an affective bond or link between people and specific places” (Hidalgo & Hernandez, 2001, p. 274). Place attachment is about the connection that people feel with a certain place (Keken, 2011, p. 124). It is about the positive emotional bond that develops between people and their environment (Stedman, 2003, p. 672). Pretty, Chiquer & Bramston (2003, p. 276) add at that “Place attachment implies an individualistic perspective, concerned with an individual’s emotional and behavioural commitment, or bonding, to place“. Hernandez et.al. (2007) discuss in their articles that place attachment and place identity are admittedly two concepts that are different, but are also related to each other (Hernandez, Hidalgo, Salazar-Laplace, & Hess, 2007, p. 311). Place identity is defined as the process by which, by interaction with places, people describe themselves in terms of belonging somewhere. Place identity would be a component of the personal identity, that develops to the elements that characterize a given place and the type of interactions that takes place in that area (Hernandez, Hidalgo, Salazar-Laplace, & Hess, 2007). In other words, place identity is the process in which people connect through an emotional relationship with a place, a ‘sense of place’, because this place is connected with the own identity or is related to personal values (Zoest, 2006). This alliance from people’s identity and values with these places has affected the involvement in these places, for example, by maintaining or improving them, by responding to changes within them, or just by staying in that certain place (Pretty, Chipuer, & Bramston, 2003, p. 285). When a person connects or identifies with a place there is usually a dependence on that place for meeting the needs of that person (Haywood, 2014, p. 71). “Place dependence describes an individual’s internal

representation of place in relation to his/her personal goal-oriented behaviours that are supported by the physical and social resources of the place, and his/her personal comparison of the quality of life in the community compared to other alternative communities” (Pretty, Chipuer, & Bramston, 2003, p. 276).

Other researchers indicate that the term place attachment exists of different sub-concepts as for example place identity and place dependence (Arnberger & Eder, 2008). Thereby these

researchers equate the concepts of sense of place and place attachment and choose to subdivide the term place attachment in dimensions that are in turn used by other authors to explain the term sense of place. Sometimes alongside to the two elements mentioned above, other elements are used more sporadically, which would also contribute to an attachment to place. Kaltenborn (1997, p. 185), for example, separates the term place attachment into the following concepts; involvement, identity formation and expression, place dependence, attachment and satisfaction. Another example is the work of Ramkissoon, Weiler & Smith (2012), which focuses on the connection between place attachment and pro-environmental behaviour in national parks. Ramkissoon et al. (2012) indicate that place attachment consists of the subcomponents place dependence, place identity, place affect and place social bonding. These four dimensions are in opinion of the authors linked to

pro-environmental behaviours. This divergent interpretation of the term place attachment also changes the definition of it; “Place attachment broadly encompasses aspects of identity, physical or social dependence, and emotional connection to specific aspects of the physical environment or other creatures that share such space” (Haywood, 2014, p. 71). The interpretation of the terms place identity and place dependence are in general equal to the interpretation that other researchers use for these terms in their researches. Haywood (2014) uses the approach of Ramkissoon, Weiler & Smith in his research. He defines place identity thus; “Place identity refers to the degree to which place is included in perceptions of individual or collective identity. Feeling that a place is a part of you

(24)

14 is just one element that contributes to place attachment” (Haywood, 2014, p. 71). According to Ramkissoon et al. (2012, p. 263) place affect is an aspect that has been overlooked in the literature and does play an important role in the pro-environmental attitudes of individuals and their

behavioural intentions. Place affect is about certain emotional bonds that form between a person and a place (Ramkissoon, Weiler, & Smith, 2012). Therefore the term shows very much resemblance with the earlier mentioned term place attachment. “Place social bonding is another

under-researched dimension of place attachment” (Ramkissoon, Weiler, & Smith, 2012, p. 164). “Place social bonding concerns the degree of attachment to place that results because of interpersonal social bonding in places” (Haywood, 2014, p. 72). By place social bonding, a feeling of connection or community arises that can be linked to a specific setting. This way the place becomes an integral part of the common relation which can lead to an increased sense of shared place attachment (Haywood, 2014).

There are different thoughts on the number of dimensions that are covered by the concept of sense of place. Some researchers prefer a more flat approach of the term sense of place, where the term consists of less dimensions. There are researchers for example who conclude that the sense of place theory includes two principal aspects, namely place attachment and place meaning that exist of related subcomponents (Stedman, 2003; Haywood, 2014; Kudryavtsev, Stedman, & Krasny, 2011). Stedman points out that the physical environment is of big importance to the construction of place meaning and attachment and that these are not always influenced by the social interaction and cultural processes in a place (Stedman, 2003, p. 671). According to Stedman (2003) the theory on sense of place consists of two primary dimensions, namely place attachment and place meaning, each with related subcomponents. Besides these two dimensions, Stedman points out that the concept of place satisfaction has influence on place attachment and place meaning (Stedman, 2003, p. 672). “Place satisfaction is defined as a multidimensional summary judgement of the perceived quality of a setting, meeting an individual’s needs for the physical characteristics of a place, its services and social dimensions” (Stedman, 2002). Here, one can notice a lot of similarities between the term satisfaction and the earlier mentioned term place dependence. According to Stedman a low satisfaction with the environment can affect the willingness of residents to participate in place-protective behaviour (Stedman, 2002). The physical environmental elements do not produce sense of place immediately, but influence the meanings that people give to the landscape. Hereby the natural environment contributes to the arising of meanings that are in their turn of influence on attachment to a place (Stedman, 2003, p. 674). Stedman describes place attachment as a bond between people and their environment based on cognition and affect (Stedman, 2002, p. 563). The other aspect that influences sense of place, according to Stedman, is place meaning which refers to the meanings that people ascribe to certain settings (Kudryavtsev, Stedman, & Krasny, 2011, p. 232). The opinion that people have of a place is built from different dimensions, that are influenced by personal

backgrounds, social interactions, culture, politics, economics but also aesthetic perspectives

(Kudryavtsev, Stedman, & Krasny, 2011, p. 232). The place meanings of people can be very different for the same location (Kudryavtsev, Stedman, & Krasny, 2011). Place meaning and place attachment are strongly connected to each other. “Place attachment reflects how strongly people are attracted towards places, while place meaning describes the reasons for this attraction” (Kudryavtsev, Stedman, & Krasny, 2011, p. 233).

It is unclear what the appropriate method to examine sense of place is because of the complex nature of this concept. According to Shamai & Ilatov (2005) there is room for many different methods to reflect the various aspects of the concepts of sense of place because the literature is still

(25)

15 not clear. It is important that the aspects that are treated in the various methods, are all-embracing. Otherwise, the opportunity exists that the concept sense of place, which is a broad term itself, is scaled down too much and loses quality that way (Shamai & Ilatov, 2005). Besides, researchers have to be aware that they do not regard their interpretation on the basis of the literature as the ‘right’ solution, because this affects the concept. For every case it should be considered which approach may be used best (Shamai & Ilatov, 2005).

Because it is not easy to define the concepts that are a part of sense of place, neither to make them measurable, I have chosen to include the various factors that are seen as being a part of the different dimensions of sense of place in the operationalisation. In doing I have chosen to leave aside whether these factors belong to place identity, place dependence or other concepts and to also leave aside how the concepts are related to each other.

Because a number of authors equate the terms sense of place and place attachment, a lot of literature can be found wherein the items that explain the concept of sense of place are also used to explain the concept of place attachment. The result is that the term place attachment is by many authors approached from a higher level of abstraction and that the term is more or less equal to the term sense of place. Therefore I have chosen to approach sense of place and place attachment as equals as well and I will thus not mention place attachment as a separate factor in this framework (see table 1).

Table 4: Overview of the factors and items that contribute to sense of place/ place attachment

Factor that contributes to sense of place / place attachment

Items

Physical environment Elements from the physical environment influence the

meanings that people have of the landscape, from which attachment with a place arises (Stedman, 2003).

Place identity - Considering the place as ‘yours’ (Pretty, Chipuer, & Bramston,

2003)

- People describe themselves in terms of belonging somewhere (Hernandez, Hidalgo, Salazar-Laplace, & Hess, 2007).

- Place is connected with the own identity or is related to personal values (Zoest, 2006).

- Feeling that a place is part of you (Haywood, 2014).

Place dependence - A dependence on a place for meeting the needs of that

person originates (Haywood, 2014, p. 71).

- Satisfaction about the possibilities a place offers in

comparison with another place (Pretty, Chipuer, & Bramston, 2003).

- Dependence can be both physical as psychosocial (Haywood, 2014).

Place affect - Emotional bonds that form between person and place

(Ramkissoon, Weiler, & Smith, 2012).

- Affective connection can lead to changing attitudes and behaviours (Pooley & O'Connor, 2000)

Place social bonding Attachment to place through interpersonal social bonding in

which the place takes an important spot (Haywood, 2014).

Satisfaction - Has influence on sense of place (Stedman, 2003).

- Judgement on the quality of the location, meeting individuals needs on the physical are, the available services and social dimensions (Stedman, 2002).

Place meaning Refers to the symbolic meanings that people ascribe to settings

The role of place making in a citizen initiated community garden. A case-study about the experiences of volunteers and visitors of the horicultural garden Warmoes

The role of place making in a citizen initiated

community garden

A case-study about the experiences of volunteers and visitors of the

horticultural garden Warmoes

Master thesis Human Geography

Radboud University Nijmegen

The role of place making in a citizen initiated

community garden

A case-study about the experiences of volunteers and visitors of the

horticultural garden Warmoes

Lisanne Cloin

Student number; s4372506

Master thesis Human Geography

Radboud University Nijmegen

Urban and cultural geography

Thesis supervisor: Dr. R. Pijpers

Contact: lisannecloin@gmail.com

Preface

Executive summary

Table of Contents

List of figures and tables

1. Introduction

2. Place making in theory and practice