The development process and effects from the management of community gardens in two post-socialist cites: Bratislava and Poznań

Journal Pre-proof The Development Process and Effects from the Management of Community Gardens in Two Post-Socialist Cites: Bratislava and Poznan´ ˇ ´ Agnieszka Wilkaniec, Magdalena Szczepanska, ´ Lucia Skamlov a, Vladim´ır Baˇc´ık, Petra Hencelova´

PII:

S1618-8667(18)30495-3

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126572

Reference:

UFUG 126572

To appear in:

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

Received Date:

6 August 2018

Revised Date:

16 December 2019

Accepted Date:

21 December 2019

ˇ ´ Please cite this article as: Skamlov a´ L, Wilkaniec A, Szczepanska M, Baˇc´ık V, Hencelova´ P, The Development Process and Effects from the Management of Community Gardens in Two ´ Urban Forestry and amp; Urban Greening Post-Socialist Cites: Bratislava and Poznan, (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126572

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier.

The Development Process and Effects from the Management of Community Gardens in Two Post-Socialist Cites: Bratislava and Poznań

ro of

Lucia Škamlová* [email protected], Agnieszka Wilkaniec, Magdalena Szczepańska, Vladimír Bačík, Petra Hencelová

*

Corresponding author: Lucia Škamlová Department of Economic and Social Geography, Demography and Territorial Development, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava, Mlynská dolina, Ilkovičova 6, 842 15 Bratislava, Slovakia

re

-p

Agnieszka Wilkaniec Departament of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Dąbrowskiego 159, 60-594 Poznań, Poland

lP

Magdalena Szczepańska Faculty of Socio-Economic Geography and Spatial Management, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Krygowskiego 10, 61-680 Poznań, Poland

na

Vladimír Bačík Department of Economic and Social Geography, Demography and Territorial Development, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava, Mlynská dolina, Ilkovičova 6, 842 15 Bratislava, Slovakia

Jo

ur

Petra Hencelová Department of Regional Geography, Protection and Planning of the Landscape, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava, Mlynská dolina, Ilkovičova 6, 842 15 Bratislava, Slovakia

Abstract

ro of

Community gardens are perceived as one of many forms of urban agriculture and gardening practices using high levels of social innovation and environmentally-friendly lifestyles. In contrast to the years of experience in the US and Western European countries, community gardens are rather new in Central and Eastern European countries. Our research strives to contribute to the lively discussion of the development process and effects from the management of community gardens in the urban environment, especially through a comparative analysis of community gardens in two post-socialist countries, Slovakia and Poland, with an emphasis on Bratislava and Poznań. In order to better understand the nuances of community gardening in these areas, we carried out extensive field research involving exploratory walks, participatory observation and semi-structured interviews with community garden representatives in both cities. The results of our analysis revealed both similarities and differences in the city-specific approaches in the ways community gardens are established, managed and developed under purportedly similar historical, geographical and socioeconomic conditions of two post-socialist cities. We conclude that a strictly copy-paste approach does not exist. In other words, the proper way of management of community gardens and even the perception and interpretation of what is considered a community garden can vary from one place to another and is usually negotiated in the place-specific local context.

-p

Keywords

re

Community garden; Urban green space; Structure of governance; Urban agriculture; Bratislava; Poznań Introduction

Jo

ur

na

lP

The history of community gardens is quite recent and began during the financial crisis of the 1970s in New York (Ioannou et al., 2016). In Western Europe, this form of gardening has proliferated over the last 20 years, and its roots can be found in guerrilla gardening and transition town movements (Keshavarz and Bell, 2016). At the same time, Eastern European countries had to deal with the collapse of the socialist regime, which thus led to political and economic transformations accompanied by social and psychological changes visible in the emergence of numerous bottom-up initiatives. An expression of this social potential may be the creation of community gardens according to Western European trends related to urban agriculture and urban revitalization in the last decade (Szulczewska et al. 2013, Kałużna and Mizgajski, 2016; Skrzypczak, 2016; Macková, 2016; Spilková, 2017). A community garden can be generally understood as a mostly bottom-up initiative where a specific plot of land (often vacant plot) is gardened and managed by a group of people in a communal setting, which results not only in food production, but also in community building, social exchange and recreation (Nettle, 2014; van der Jagt et al., 2017; Egli et al., 2016; Cabral, 2017). As highlighted by the extensive analysis by Guitart et al. (2012), current research is disproportionally focused on gardens in the US and Western Europe, although its popularity is on the rise across all of the European Union (Goda et al., 2015; Borčić et al., 2016; Spilková, 2017; van der Jagt et al., 2017). Thus, there is a need to diversify the research in terms of geographical, social and political contexts (Ioannou et al., 2016, van der Jagt et al., 2017). We therefore intend to contribute to the lively discourse related to urban community gardening and expand its thematic diversity by conducting a

comparative analysis of two post-socialist countries, Slovakia and Poland, with a focus on community gardening in Bratislava and Poznań. The article aims to identify the new phenomenon of community gardens in Bratislava and Poznań and investigate the way these gardens are established and managed, which is based on the classification formulated by Fox-Kämper et al. (2018) that identifies their structures of governance and implies its development and use. Finally, we aim to point out the commonalities and differences in their functioning and uncover place-specific factors that influence their sustainability. A prerequisite for this is the knowledge of the contextual characteristics that co-shape the development of community gardens, which include urban layout, local government attitudes, and experiences of good practices mediated by representatives of community gardens.

ro of

In the light of the spatial and social determinants of the two post-socialist cities under investigation, the following main research questions concerning community gardens come to the forefront: What similarities and differences can be observed concerning the management, functions and spatial arrangements of community gardens in Bratislava and Poznań? What kind of place-specific factors support or hinder successful development and long duration of community gardens in both cities?

na

lP

re

-p

To contextualize these questions, we begin with a brief description of the conceptual framework related to community gardening, followed by a section devoted to the methods applied and an introduction of the case-study area. Next, we reveal the background of community gardening in both countries, and based on extensive research and the lessons learned from interviews with garden managers, we offer insights into the structure and functioning of individual community gardens in the analysed cities. Special attention is paid to the evaluation of a specific set of qualitative and quantitative data necessary for further comparative analysis of the development process and effects from the management of community gardens. We further discuss the key challenges of existing community gardens related to different perceptions of space, degrees of access, structures of governance and their embeddedness in the land use planning system. We conclude by arguing that despite seemingly different development patterns and management practices, this relatively new form of urban gardening has proven itself in both cities, seeking to consolidate its position within the urban land use in terms of sustainability. Conceptual framework related to community gardens

Jo

ur

Since our research focuses on community gardens, it is essential to differentiate between the terms 'community garden' and 'allotment garden', which are both parts of the urban gardening discourse and should not be equated. Allotment gardens, as we know them today, have their roots in the mid and late-nineteenth century, and they have been sources of local resilience during periods of crisis, e.g. World War I., World War II. (Barthel et al., 2010). Community gardens, however, appeared in New York in the 1970s on vacant construction sites (Ioannou et al., 2016). Thus, community gardens did not emerge from allotment gardens, but have their own history. The primary distinguishing factors are the form in which the land is used, their status in the planning system, land ownership and the main purpose of the garden itself (Table 1). At the same time, we must admit that both types of gardens do not necessarily vary in all aspects that are highlighted in Table 1, since differentiated and place-specific urban contexts shape their nuances.

Community gardens today are perceived as one of many forms of urban agriculture and gardening practices that feature high levels of social innovation and environmentally friendly lifestyles (Duží et al., 2014). Unlike the original role of allotment gardens, which were to provide essential nutrients in the time of food shortages in low-income countries or low-income communities (Guitart et al., 2012; Badami and Ramankutty, 2015) as pointed out by Egli et al. (2016), nowadays, community gardens are often established by active volunteers (regardless of education, gender, income or age (Duží et al., 2014)) who attempt to seek an alternative to the typical forms of urban land use and provide an alternative to the present food environment.

re

-p

ro of

Community gardens are mostly related to social practices, grassroots activism, concerns about urban crises and only regard food security as a secondary issue (Barthel et al., 2010; Barthel and Isendahl, 2013; Drake and Lawson, 2014; Ghose and Pettygrove, 2014; Borčić et al., 2016; Lohrberg et al., 2016). Nevertheless, many community gardens seem to provide a relatively cheap food supply as a solution to the problem of urban food insecurity (Guitart et al., 2012; Redwood, 2012) which, in some cases, has proven to be justified (Barthel and Isendahl, 2013; Egli et al., 2016). As shown by extensive research, this form of engagement by urban residents in outdoor physical activity – gardening, also contributes to community building, promotes positive placemaking, social integration, facilitates participation and democracy in the food system, and improves overall wellbeing (Colding and Barthel, 2013; Ghose and Pettygrove, 2014; Egli et. al., 2016; Prové et al., 2016). Philips (2013) adds that community gardens are places where people can establish new contacts, meet different cultures and improve the environment by community development. In this context, Zimbler (2011) claims that community gardens have positive social, environmental and economic impacts on local communities and have been regarded as a desirable element of sustainable development.

Jo

ur

na

lP

In an attempt to further anchor the issue of community gardens, as well as their functional and spatial structure, the issues of land use and urban planning also come to the forefront. Although nowadays, community gardens are quite a visible feature of the urban landscape, Borčić et al. (2016) point out that in many cases they were never officially recorded or included in spatial planning documents. This reluctance of local authorities often stems from the absence of the term 'community garden' and its definition in the planning documents and the status of community gardens as temporary forms of land use. Thus, from the perspective of local authorities, these gardens are often perceived as if they never existed. Nevertheless, community gardens do not exist outside society, but are embedded within the micro-policies of the city, and their degree of inclusiveness varies from one case to another (Ernwein, 2014). As Zimbler (2011) further explains, many land-use planners refuse to consider community gardens as an appropriate use of public land simply because community gardening, despite its environmental or social benefits, is not an economically attractive activity when compared to other 'better' tax-generating uses of the land. Furthermore, community gardening is often understood as a short-term activity or temporary practice, or as a short-term solution to a vacancy and not as a permanent replacement. Changing this viewpoint could help to ensure that community gardening be considered just as appropriate as other urban land uses (Drake and Lawson, 2014). Nevertheless, the long history of urban agriculture and gardening indicates that agricultural production is not 'the antithesis of the city', but rather in many cases, a fully integrated urban activity (Barthel and Isendahl, 2013).

Methods and area of investigation Research on community gardens provides a broad scope for the application of diverse methods. Interviews, questionnaires and participatory research are among the most commonly used research techniques (see, e.g. Guitart et al., 2012; Bendt et al., 2013; Borčić et al., 2016; Cabral et al., 2017). As highlighted by Limb and Dwyer (2001), qualitative methods are characterised by an in-depth approach seeking a subjective understanding of reality rather than a purely statistical description and generalised predictions. Thus, they generally appear to be appropriate tools to investigate the functional and spatial aspects of community gardens as well.

ro of

Two post-socialist cities in Central Europe (Bratislava in Slovakia and Poznań in Poland) were selected for our research (Figure 1) due to their similar historical, geographical and socio-economic development conditions. They are large cities located on rivers with important supra-regional administrative, cultural, educational, economic and service-providing functions, where urban agriculture has a relatively long tradition of allotment gardens. However, the emergence of community gardens is a relatively recent phenomenon in both cities.

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

-p

Figure 1 Area of investigation

Source: Authors elaboration Our field research was preceded by desk research, which comprised the study of international literature with a focus on the Slovakia and Poland, the processing of statistical data obtained from

the Slovak and Polish Statistical Offices (ŠUSR, GUS), as well as the retrieval of data from the websites and social networks of the community gardens themselves. In both cities, the existing planning and strategic documents were also analysed in the context of such issues as community gardens, allotment gardens, urban agriculture and urban greenery. Bratislava´s perspective included a thorough analysis of the Spatial Management Plan of Bratislava and a land use planning document on greenery (the so-called "General Development Plan of Greenery”1. In the case of Poznań, the following documents were analysed: the Study of Conditions and Directions of Spatial Management of the City of Poznań, Local Spatial Management Plans, and the Poznań City Development Strategy. Information on available grant schemes and programmes related to urban greenery and sustainable development, which are currently implemented by the municipal authorities in Poznań and Bratislava, have also been taken into account.

na

lP

re

-p

ro of

Building on this, we began our extensive field research - exploratory walks, participatory observation and interviews. Comparative studies of community gardens in Bratislava and Poznań were conducted in 2017 - 2018 in a systematic way for all gardens. The field research itself was preceded by the identification of the community gardens that were assigned identification codes (CG#_BA, CG#_PO). For both cities, a uniform fact sheet was created to capture the functional and spatial aspects of community gardening in order to enable a comparative analysis (see Table 4a and 4b). Information was gathered through observation while visiting community gardens as well as through semistructured interviews (11 in Bratislava2 and 6 in Poznań3) conducted with the community garden´s representatives (garden managers). The interviews were conducted according to a set scheme (questions aimed at obtaining information on land ownership, initiation of the garden, cooperation with the external sector, membership, subsidies, functions of the garden, and organised activities). The analysis of the interviews included several steps. All of the interviews were recorded and transcribed in full and analysed in detail, and then further interpreted both quantitatively and qualitatively. Later, we used the typology of different structures of governance of community gardens as an analytic framework, which was used in the research by Fox-Kämper et al. (2018) (originated by McGlone et al., 1999), and applied it to the community gardens in both cities in order to better understand their internal organisation and relationships (Table 2). Results

Jo

ur

In this section, the findings from the review of literature, relevant documents and case studies are all presented together, while at the same time linking to one another. The spatial, functional and demographic characteristics of both cities in the context of greenery foreshadow, in part, the potential development of community gardening (Table 3).

1

General Development Plan of Greenery is an optional sectoral spatial planning document that proposes a system of greenery for the territorial unit, its development and protection. It balances existing areas of greenery, evaluates the state of practical use and quality or damage to green areas, and the potential for further development of the individual species of greenery in built-up areas (Dobrucká, 2009). 2 1 of the 12 gardens was not included in the analysis because its management was not interested in interviewing or providing information. 3 2 community gardens were established by one organisation, thus information for both was obtained through 1 interview only.

Bratislava, the capital and largest city in Slovakia, in terms of size and population has a share of green space of 11%, which is considerably lower than most regional centres in Slovakia.Moreover, the share of arranged green space, i.e. parks, is critical, covering only 1.32% of Bratislava. Greenery maintenance has been neglected for many years here, and nowadays, its effects are beginning to show. For instance, in 1999, Bratislava prepared an individual land use planning document on greenery. However, no amendment or update has been completed since then. Therefore, the city needs to solve this problem from scratch. In order to ensure the methodological and conceptual coordination of maintenance for greenery, the position of City Gardener was created in Bratislava in 2005, and the Department of Urban Greening was subsequently established in 2008.

-p

ro of

On the other hand, Poznań - the eighth largest and fifth-most populous city in Poland, has a slightly different position. The green areas in the city are comprised of a system of rings and wedges. The green rings were established along the fortifications, while the four green wedges run along the natural valleys of the Rivers Warta, Bogdanka and Cybina. At present, the share of green space in the total area of the city is 17%. Poznań is a green city chiefly due to the vegetation growing in its surrounding forests, cemeteries and along its streets (Central Statistical Office, 2017). The city's attitude to greenery is also declared in the City of Poznań Development Strategy, where it is assumed that “Poznań in 2030 is a city with a large area of green spaces available to all residents. Its considerable area is occupied by well-managed public and street greenery, forest areas, allotment gardens and open community gardens which are used by residents who care for them“ (CPDS, 2013, p. 24).

re

Reflecting on the outlined positionality of urban greenery in both cities, it is also necessary to become familiar with the background that preceded and shaped the community gardening initiatives and ultimately influenced contemporary community gardens.

Jo

ur

na

lP

Unlike urban allotment gardens, which were highly popular in post-socialist countries for many decades, community gardens have only developed just recently and attracted activists in Slovakia and Poland. This new form of food activism and urban horticulture is closely related to a growing interest in food origin and quality, local production, changes in eating habits and general environmental awareness (Bitušíková, 2013; Malinowska, 2015; Maćkiewicz et al., 2018). The roots of this activism and urban environmental advocacy activities reach back to the period of socialism, however, they did not fully manifest until the regime had changed after 1989. These activists have been pointing out to the problems with the environment in which they live for such a long time that this topic has been resonating in pre-election campaigns for decades in many cities, including Bratislava, thus influencing urban land use policies (Šuška, 2014). Similarly, more and more activists associated with different urban movements in Poland have been attempting to gain influence on city management based on the expectations of local communities. These are similar to those in Western Europe, which had originated several decades earlier (Kubicki, 2011; Kowalewski, 2013). The first community garden in Slovakia was established in 2012 in Bratislava, followed by gardens in smaller cities such as Nitra and Banská Bystrica (Duží et al., 2014). In Poland, one of the first

community garden initiatives was taken by Generator Malta4 in Poznań in 2013 (Maćkiewicz et al., 2018) and Green Cross Poland in a nationwide grant program called "Our Common Garden" in 2014 (Kałużna and Mizgajski, 2016). The motivation of their establishment varies not only between countries, but also within them. As highlighted by Bitušíková (2016), the diverse nature of community gardens in Slovakia reflects the various motivations of the people involved. Besides cultivation and the intention to grow one's own healthy food, a sense of community, society-building and contributing to a better neighbourhood and urban environment seems to gain its popularity. In Poland, first and foremost, they tend to satisfy their users' social needs through the integration of the local community, by establishing social contacts, building a sense of community, creating a friendly public space and satisfying the need for contact with vegetation (Latkowska, 2012; Malinowska, 2015; Skrzypczak, 2016).

ro of

During our field research, we identified 12 community gardens in Bratislava and 7 in Poznań5 (Figure 2). Tables 4a and 4b present a structured overview of the key aspects related to the emergence, function and appearance of community gardens in both cities. We will further refer to these data in the following interpretation of the results of the comparative analysis.

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

-p

Figure 2 Land use in Bratislava and Poznań with emphasis on greenery system and community gardens

Source: Authors elaboration

4

Generator Malta is an artistic and social project created by the Festival Malta Poznań (a theatre festival in Poznań). It has been activating and integrating city residents since 2013 by organizing different social activities and public debates. 5 Research did not take into account gardens which were closed by 2017 or were established in 2018.

Establishment and management of community gardens In both case studies, it was confirmed that community gardens were usually established by young activists or leaders of local communities, foundations and other non-profit organisations involved in social and cultural activities. Little or no involvement of the municipality, urban planners or decisionmakers was recorded. Professional support was usually limited to voluntary counselling or assistance with acquiring funds (Dawidowicz and Lorenc, 2016; Malinowska, 2015; Skrzypczak, 2016). "There is a huge space in Bratislava for such things [community gardens]. In this city, there is an incredibly large activist network, and there are many people who want to do it." CG3_BA community garden representative

-p

ro of

This was also shown by the analysis of the structure of governance (see Table 3) where most of the gardens (66 %) originated from the bottom-up initiative of local activists within the community with some form of help from external organisations. Even in the two cases in Bratislava and the one in Poznań, where we observed a changing pattern from a top-down to a bottom-up governance structure, community gardens were primarily initiated by external organisations without attachment to the specific locality, and later on, adopted by the local community. Although in the literature, cases of bottom-up governance structure prevail (Ioannou et al., 2016; Keshavarz and Bell, 2016; Sousa, 2016, Fox-Kämper et al., 2018), in three gardens in Poznań, we also encountered top-down establishment of community gardens, initiated by the NGO sector, universities or local businesses.

ur

na

lP

re

Surprisingly, considering the bottom-up governance structure, even after the establishment of community gardens, the cooperation between community garden activists and local authorities was not observed in all cases. In Bratislava, only four community gardens, all situated on public land, demonstrated a certain level of cooperation in terms of technical assistance or administration of temporary authorisations of use. However, in Poznań, the cooperation with the city and local councils or cooperative housing associations were acknowledged by six out of seven representatives of community gardens. This is based on the fact that the cooperative housing associations provide free services or plots of land, and community gardens may apply for municipal grants. An exceptional example is one community garden in Poznań (CG7 PO) which was created by a municipal institution and later donated to the local community. However, it continues to be subsidised. From the perspective of financial viability, the majority of community gardens also have so-called 'membership fees', whether voluntarily (Poznań) or in the form of an annual fee or seedbed fee (Bratislava).

Jo

Moreover, local authorities in both cities support community gardens occasionally through different grant schemes and subsidies, thus promoting environmental sustainability in the city. For instance, the Green Adoption project is currently underway in Bratislava. It aims to create a fundamental framework for citizen involvement in green space management, also resulting in newly emerging community gardens. On the other hand, since 2017, the City of Poznań has been implementing the CONNECTING Nature project under the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (Smart and sustainable cities: implementing innovative solutions based on nature). One of the aims of this project is the establishment of community gardens in the densely built-up centre of the city with the participation of residents.

However, even the city's occasional financial incentives and short-term projects do not automatically guarantee sufficient support and cooperation at the desired level, as the following statement suggests: "We are asking for grants... I do not see the meaning, the money will not change the situation here, but the proper cooperation with the city could do so. The city should systematically support the projects; it should have a policy in place to help people who want to do such things [community gardening] and look for land to create gardens. I do not want to set up another garden with the city; I want to create a system together in which people can create gardens by themselves." CG7_BA community garden representative Functions of community gardens

re

-p

ro of

Considering the character and primary function of community gardens, the social impact is the most profound here, although some differences can be distinguished. In terms of the number of functions, we can see that in the case of Bratislava, one primary and one supplementary function can be identified in most gardens. On the other hand, the case of Poznań may be described as rather multifunctional in terms of both primary and supplementary functions. Looking at the functional diversity, we observe that in Bratislava, the original intention to re-cultivate urban space for better public use and to ensure access to locally grown and healthy food resulted in cultivation as the most common basic function in 6 out of 11 gardens, while the most frequent supplementary functions are recreation (4) and integration (3).

ur

na

lP

On the contrary, In Poznań, community gardens serve first and foremost as a place for education (all 7 gardens have listed education as one of their core functions) and integration of the local community (5), while the additional function is mainly focused on cultivation (4) and recreation (3). This is partly connected with the accessibility to the community gardens. In Bratislava, community gardens are usually fenced (9 out of 11 cases) and locked areas open only to its members (7 out of 11 cases). Although this specificity contradicts the established perception of community gardens as open spaces (see Table 1), the higher degree of enclosure of these gardens is mostly related to the dominance of the cultivation function, the safe storage of common tools and equipment, and an endeavour to protect the garden from vandalism. However, in spite of the physical barrier - the fence - there is also room for interaction with those from outside who are interested in community gardening.

Jo

"The garden is not accessible to the public, it is locked, and only its members have the keys. However, we have an unwritten rule that whenever someone is interested in community gardening, we invite them in and show them the garden.” CG1_BA community garden representative Gardens in Poznań often have the character of public accessible gardens and serve a wider community of neighbours and the general public (6 out of 7 cases). Thus, the term 'member' can be interpreted as 'user' here. On the other hand, in all community gardens, apart from one in Poznań, and regardless of their openness or closeness, different social and cultural events take place here in order to promote a sense of belonging, create community garden identity and improve the various skills related to cultivation.

“I think that in Poznań, the residents – community garden users, are more interested in culture than agriculture because we always had fewer people when we organised gardening workshops than for an exhibition, cinema or concert.” CG2_PO community garden representative Spatial arrangements of community gardens

ro of

Tables 4a and 4b show that these similar cities, both with a post-socialist background, have adopted considerably different ways of implementing community gardens. While in Bratislava, community gardens are more extensive and mostly situated on public land, community gardens in Poznań are spread over smaller areas under city or cooperative ownership. Irrespective of the city, in almost all cases, community gardens have a well-maintained spatial order and plenty of amenities. For example, the majority of community gardens have a shelter or arbour (77 %), tool shed (66 %) or composter (66 %). However, access to water (generally considered as the vital prerequisite of the community garden) is still a challenge in almost 40 % of all gardens. While in Bratislava, only three community gardens exist without access to drinking water, in the case of Poznań, only three community gardens have a supply of drinking water, while others seek to solve the absence of water by their own means (e.g. rainwater tanks).

CG5_PO community garden representative

lP

Place-specific factors predictive of success

re

-p

“We bring water ourselves, but it is not enough, especially in the summer when it is hot. We are thinking about the establishment of permaculture where plants beds should be prepared once and watered and then enjoy the benefits of nature from the spring season."

na

Despite the nuances mentioned above, community gardens in both cities face similar challenges affecting their long-term sustainability. These are mainly related to localisation factors, namely the nature of land use, location within the city, and accessibility (both in terms of transport and infrastructure).

Jo

ur

One of the most pressing issues is the limited anchoring of community gardens as a sustainable activity in urban land use planning and the prevailing perception of this activity as temporary rather than permanent land use. To date, in the city of Bratislava, the development of community gardens is not included in spatial planning and development documents. Community gardens are found only in the city registry. However, the city does not consider them in spatial development (Hencelová, 2018). The majority of them were established in unused urban spaces as temporary projects waiting for a new investment incentive, sale or official authorisation (Macková, 2016). Similarly, in Poznań, community gardens are not part of land-use planning (SCDSM 2014), but the issue of community gardens appears in the City of Poznań Development Strategy, although without proposing concrete measures that the city would like to undertake to develop this form of urban gardening (CPDS, 2013). As a result of the facts mentioned above, we identified several community gardens in Bratislava and Poznań which have been closed. Currently, about 70 % of the formerly existing community gardens in Poznań and Bratislava are preserved. Most of the closed ones were located in the inner parts of cities (Figure 2). Although these gardens (5 in Bratislava and 3 in Poznań) were not the object of our study,

throughout our interviews (since the network of community garden activists is well-interconnected in both cities) we have revealed the reasons for their relatively short lifespan. In Bratislava, it was mainly due to property law disputes – e.g. sale of private land on which the community garden was established, termination or non-renewal of the lease or solely the owner's decision to change the purpose of land use. It was the same in Poznań, where community gardens were closed mainly because of property law disputes or the land owner´s decision (in most cases municipal authority) to change the type of land use. Central locations in the city were too attractive for investments to maintain community gardens and were later replaced with leisure and cultural services with urban ornamental greenery.

ro of

Similar pitfalls threaten the sustainability of today's community gardens. An example is one wellmanaged and functioning garden in Poznań, created by a bottom-up initiative, which is expected to be closed down due to the planned municipal investment in the construction of a roller skating rink. The desired situation is well presented in the following quote: “And now they are closing one of the coolest community gardens. Well, it is just a scandal. It should not be moved. First of all, everybody has become used to this place and to come here. The authorities do not respect it. There is a kind of trend to activate society, to get people to spend more time outside. Well, if there is such a beautiful initiative and something happens, you give up..."

-p

CG2_PO community garden representative

lP

re

The localisation of the community garden within the urban layout is another factor affecting its sustainability. Although the inner city location (with regard to the city centre or settlement centre) is desirable, the perception of the particular urban setting (its appearance, attractiveness) and proximity to the garden (in terms of distance and time required to access garden) remains subjective but should not be neglected as well.

na

“…place is a small obstacle for us that we are not in the Old City [city centre], that we are in the New Town [the outskirts of the city] and this neighbourhood does not have such a genius loci [the special atmosphere of a particular place and surrounding influence] and it comes to people as infinitely far.” CG5_BA community garden representative

ur

Discussion

Jo

Despite the common historical, social and economic background of the two analysed post-socialist cities, we found that there is considerable variety in community gardens development. Community gardens typically emerge as bottom-up initiatives (Lohrberg et al., 2016), however, results of our analysis point out a significant mixture of bottom-up as well as top-down approaches which have been applied, while the latter were mainly observed in Poznań. This confirms the fact that the issue of community gardening addresses not only residents as individuals looking for places where they can reconnect with nature, but also organisations, companies and municipalities that strive for meaningful urban land use in terms of sustainable development. So far, the analysed projects of community gardening in both cities have become successful and popular projects even without systematic support from the city. This is mainly related to the availability of local food champions and facilitators engaging in community building (van der Jagt et al., 2017) and the local community involvement in the early stages of the planning and establishing community gardens which, as

pointed by Fox-Kämper et al. (2018), might improve the likelihood of a garden’s longevity. However, it should be added that neither our findings nor other studies on governance of community gardens (Prové et al., 2016; van der Jagt et al., 2017; Fox-Kämper et al., 2018) have confirmed that the success factor can only be found in top-down or bottom-up approaches, but rather it is about finding the right way of cooperation between the various stakeholders (city, local community, activists).

ro of

When looking at their embeddedness in the city´s land-use planning, community gardens usually do not exist in the planning system and have temporary status (Zimbler, 2011). It is about the same for Bratislava and Poznań – the temporary status of community gardens implies an uncertain future depending on the preferences of the current 'ruling' city authorities and their willingness to implement environmental issues, and especially the question of greenery and community gardening within the urban layout. As Šuška (2014) points out with respect to Bratislava, the lack of rules and the non-existent proactive policy of local institutions to support civic activities and direct urban transformation are one of the main obstacles for the public sphere in terms of local activism here.

na

lP

re

-p

On the other hand, Poznań appears to be more inclined to the idea of community gardening. First of all, there are several examples of the top-down governance structure of community gardens including those with the participation of the municipality, compared to a significantly dominant bottom-up approach without municipal intervention in the case of Bratislava. These findings are consistent with the fact that although bottom-up initiatives represent the most common practice (Fox-Kämper et al., 2018), the role of municipalities in urban community gardening is, in most cases, significant (van der Jagt et al., 2017). When looking at Central Eastern Europe, Goda et al. (2015) add that given the non-profit nature of the urban community gardens, their long-term existence is heavily dependent on municipality support. It eventually turns out to be true when looking at the reasons for the disappearance of some community gardens that were forced to give up land in favour of economically more profitable use. In a way, this again confirms the general perception of community gardens as mostly temporary solutions to urban land use, while their existence is acknowledged only until preferred development plans designated for the particular areas are put in motion (Kurtz, 2001; Borčić et al., 2016). Thus, our findings are compatible with the observations of other authors who state that the lack of implementation of community gardening in the city spatial planning documents results from its low profitability (Zimbler, 2011) or the perception of community gardening as a temporary activity (Drake and Lawson, 2014).

Jo

ur

The literature further presents community gardens as socially important initiatives that allow the building of social connections, intensify integration, prevent exclusion, and strengthen processes related to social participation (Philips, 2013; van der Jagt et al., 2017). At the same time, they are important elements of urban gardening, a food provision source, and a new form of food activism (Zimbler, 2011; Bitušíková, 2013; Cohen and Reynolds, 2014; van der Jagt et al., 2017). Goda et al. (2015) summed up some key aspects of community gardening in Central Eastern Europe and have come to the conclusion that they vary depending on their size, structure and aims, but generally are grassroots initiatives of local inhabitants or activists which serve a predominantly environmental function, supporting recreation and leisure, and lastly, horticulture activities. In our case, these functions are mutually intertwined, and while Poznań is dominated by non-cultivation basic functions, such as education, integration of the local community (one of basic functions in 71,4% of gardens in Poznań) and recreation (one of basic functions in 42,9% of gardens in Poznań), cultivation continues to play a significant role in Bratislava (one of basic functions in 54,5% of gardens in

Bratislava). Moreover, community gardens in Poznań are rather multifunctional, carrying more basic and supplementary functions at the same time, while in Bratislava, focus is mostly on one basic and one supplementary function instead. The results of our research imply that these functions may not necessarily be fixed. However, they are somewhat subject to changes by the preferences of the members of community gardens or by changes in the membership base itself.

re

-p

ro of

At the same time, these functions indicate the very way in which these gardens operate and define the perception of community gardening in both cities. In Bratislava, community gardens cannot be perceived as 'open spaces' or public accessible gardens, but rather as fenced areas which are accessible only to a specific group of members of a given community (63,6% of these gardens are closed to public). As Kurtz (2001) points out in this respect, the impacts of enclosure are less understood facets of urban community gardening and, although many urban community gardens are fenced and locked to protect against vandalism and theft, such limitations on access to garden spaces may induce a sense of access barrier to the public. On the contrary, in Poznań, the character of a public accessible garden automatically determines these places as the centres of broader social interactions and relationships beyond the 'gates' of the given community garden (85,7% of these gardens are open to public). As a result, we can find a form of city co-financing in almost all community gardens in Poznań, since these tend to have a greater perceived likelihood of societal impact compared to community gardens in Bratislava. This brings our attention to the fact that the perception and interpretation of what is considered a community garden can vary from place to place and is usually negotiated in the place-specific local context (Kurtzs, 2001; Ernwein, 2014). This further implies that many of them might not meet the criteria of a generalized vision of a community garden (Latkowska, 2012; Keshavarz and Bell, 2016; van der Jagt et al., 2017) (see also Table 1).

na

lP

In addition to the aforementioned challenges faced by the analysed community gardens, such as their problematic anchoring in urban land use planning, governance approach and perception of space, another arising question is related to resources - especially access to water. So far, the majority of the investigated gardens have secured the acquisition of either drinking water, collecting rainwater or water from the nearby river. However, 4 gardens (1 in Bratislava and 3 in Poznań) have not yet solved this issue. Nevertheless, as the results of the study by Becker and von der Wall (2018) show, the difficulty in acquiring enough water or uncertainty over enough water for the garden can endanger the long term sustainability of the community garden.

Jo

ur

The results of our study are consistent with the literature, not only on the characteristic features of community gardens, but also when looking at the key success and failure factors. Several scholars have focused on identifying barriers that community gardens face in their daily struggle for survival and have thus revealed a range of success factors from the long-term perspective. Although, as Prové et al. (2016) pointed out, opportunities or barriers are case-dependent and mediated by contextspecific factors, a cross-case comparison implies that the most important aspects are related to structure of governance, complicated land-use regulations and permit procedures, municipal support, resource scarcity and social capital involved (Ghose and Pettygrove, 2014; Borčić et al., 2016; van der Jagt et al., 2017; Fox-Kämper et al., 2018). As previously indicated, in our case study analysis, the place-specific factors, which hindered successful development of community gardens, referred mainly to the persisting perception of community gardens as a temporary activity, lack of embeddedness in the land use planning, and in terms of scarcity of resources, access to water was most pronounced.

Conclusion

re

-p

ro of

The analysis of the first years of attempts to establish a new form of urban gardening in Bratislava and Poznań enabled us to better understand the rationale of community gardening in the specific conditions of two post-socialist cities. As evidenced by our case studies, community gardening practices can differ from one place to another, even under seemingly similar historical, geographical and socio-economic conditions. While in Poznań we noticed a mixture of structures of governance, prevailing non-cultivation functions and greater openness to the public, Bratislava is characterised by prevalent bottom-up establishments, focus on cultivation and openness to a smaller community of members. Despite this diversity, the sustainability of gardens in both cities is particularly threatened by the same factors. Unlike ownership transformations and the management of allotment gardens, which have a long tradition in Poland and Slovakia, the topic of community gardens is non-existent in political discussion. Moreover, the provisions regarding community gardens do not appear in planning documents, and community gardens are still seen as temporary activities. Thus, the secret of success does not lie in an ultimate one-size-fits-all approach. In other words, community gardens may differ in terms of the perception of space, degree of access or societal impact, and this diversity is shaped by specific local circumstances (Kurtz, 2001). Instead, their success often depends on their acceptance as a meaningful and permanent activity, the embeddedness of community gardening in land use planning, and the level of cooperation between all stakeholders within the local community, external organisations and city government. These findings correspond to the results of several studies dealing with issues of governance, management and embeddedness of community gardens within the differentiated urban contexts (Barthel et al., 2010; Ghose and Pettygrove, 2014; Goda et al., 2015; Borčić et al., 2016; Prové et al., 2016; van der Jagt et al., 2017).

Jo

ur

na

lP

Despite the fact that community gardening has developed only recently in Bratislava and Poznań, and their development so far has been accompanied by a lack of integration in urban development, we can see its fast adaptation and growing popularity. Moreover, even new community gardens are being created. This is a clear sign that their citizens are willing to make a commitment to their community and to the city where they live. At the same time, the experience of recent years, which concerns several community gardens that have been closed in both cities as well, shows that even the future of successfully operating gardens nowadays is still uncertain. It will be interesting to see how the cooperation between the general public, active citizenship and local authorities will develop in this respect, especially in times of changing political constellations in both countries. The positive development is indicated by the fact that with an increasing emphasis on sustainable urban development, preservation of natural ecosystems through 'green infrastructure' (currently one of the new EU policies) has become more significant as one of the non-traditional alternatives in this context. The colourful mosaic of the existing community gardens that we analysed in Bratislava and Poznań is clear evidence of this. In this context, several positive examples of good practice suggest that even greater involvement of local actors, the participation of garden users in public discussions, social media and community representation by formalized groups (associations, foundations) is necessary to achieve full acceptance of community gardens by the city (Rosol, 2010; Ghose and Pettygrove, 2014; Borčić et al., 2016). After all, the persistent interest of residents in urban gardening and their appeal to city management is the most significant driving force that can make the city aware of the meaningfulness of these

activities, which contribute not only to the positive image of the city, but also to healthy relationships in the city and development of urban communities in general.

Conflict of interest: none

Acknowledgement

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

-p

ro of

This paper was prepared as a part of the following research projects: VEGA No. 1/0745/16, VEGA No. 1/0246/17, APVV-17-0079 and APVV-16-0232. We would like to thank the anonymous referees for their encouraging comments and suggestions on the earlier draft of this article. This paper has undergone a professional linguistic correction.

References Badami, M. G., Ramankutty, N., 2015. Urban agriculture and food security: A critique based on an assessment of urban land constraints. Global Food Security. 4, 8-15. Barthel, S., Folke, C., Colding, J., 2010. Social–ecological memory in urban gardens -Retaining the capacity for management of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 20(2), 255-265. Barthel, S.,Isendahl, C., 2013. Urban gardens, agriculture, and water management: Sources of resilience for long-term food security in cities. Ecological Economics, 86, 224-234.

ro of

Becker, S. L., von der Wall, G., 2018. Tracing regime influence on urban community gardening: How resource dependence causes barriers to garden longer term sustainability. Urban forestry & urban greening, 35,p. 82-90. Bendt, P., Barthel, S.,Colding, J., 2013. Civic greening and environmental learning in public-access community gardens in Berlin. Landscape and Urban planning. 109(1), 18-30.

-p

Bitušíková, A., 2013. On the Way to Sustainable Lifestyles: Changes in Food Practices. In: Bitušíková, A. - Luther, D. (Eds.).Cultural and social diversity in Slovakia IV. Social change and adaptation. Banská Bystrica: Univerzita Mateja Bela, Bratislava: Ústav etnológie SAV. p. 31-43.

re

Bitušíková, A., 2016. Community gardening as a means to changing urban inhabitants and their space. 3 (2), 33-42.

lP

Borčić, L. S., Cvitanović, M.,Lukić, A., 2016. Cultivating alternative spaces–Zagreb’s community gardens in transition: From socialist to post-socialist perspective. Geoforum. 77, 51-60.

na

Cabral, I., Keim, J., Engelmann, R., Kraemer, R., Siebert, J., Bonn, A., 2017. Ecosystem services of allotment and community gardens: A Leipzig, Germany case study. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 23, 44-53.

ur

CPDS. 2013. City of Poznań Development Strategy 20+ and updated 30+. [cited 15.12.2018]. Available online: http://www.poznan.pl/mim/main/-,p,14886.html

Jo

Cohen, N., Reynolds, K., 2014. Urban agriculture policy urban agriculture policy making in New York’s “New Political Spaces”: strategizing for a participatory and representative system. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 34 (2), 221–234. Colding, J., Barthel, S., 2013. The potential of ‘Urban Green Commons’ in the resilience building of cities. Ecological Economics. 86, 156-166. CONNECTING Nature project (COproductioN with NaturE for City Transitioning, Innovation and Governance), [cited 15.12.2018]. Available online: https://connectingnature.eu/poznan Čechová, H. et al., 1999. Územný generel zelene mesta Bratislavy (General Development Plan of Greenery for Bratislava). 173 p.

Dawidowicz L., Lorenc M., 2016. Ogród Łazarz i Ogród ”Republika Śródka” [w:] T. Cłapa, E.M. Szymański (red.), Nauka dla środowiska, I, Górnołużyckie Stowarzyszenie Pszczelarzy, Zgorzelec, 36– 45. Dobrucká, A., 2004. Nová metodika generelov zelene – I. Sídlo – park – krajina. VES SPU, Nitra. p. 124-129. Dobrucká, A., 2009. Metodické prístupy hodnotenia vegetačných plôch v urbánnom prostredí. Dizertačná práca. Slovenská poľnohospodárska univerzita. Nitra. 119 p. Drake, L., Lawson, L. J., 2014. Validating verdancy or vacancy? The relationship of community gardens and vacant lands in the US. Cities. 40, 133-142.

ro of

Duží, B., Tóth, A., Bihuňová, M., Stojanov, R., 2014. Challenges of Urban Agriculture: Highlights on the Czech and Slovak Republic Specifics. Current challenges of Central Europe: Society and Environment, 82-107. Egli, V., Oliver, M., Tautolo, E. S., 2016. The development of a model of community garden benefits to wellbeing. Preventive medicine reports. 3, 348-352.

-p

Ernwein, M., 2014. Framing urban gardening and agriculture: On space, scale and the public. Geoforum. 56, 77-86.

re

Fox-Kämper, R., Wesener, A., Münderlein, D., Sondermann, M., McWilliam, W., Kirk, N., 2018. Urban community gardens: An evaluation of governance approaches and related enablers and barriers at different development stages. Landscape and Urban Planning. 170, 59-68.

lP

Ghose, R.,Pettygrove, M., 2014. Actors and networks in urban community garden development. Geoforum. 53, 93-103.

na

Goda, P., Trendov, N., Kis M., 2015. Comparative study on urban community gardening in Central Eastern Europe. In: Connecting local and global food for sustainable solutions in public food procurement. Rome, Proceedings of the Conference. 259-260.

Jo

ur

Guide to the Act of 13 December 2013 on family gardens. The official portal of the Allotment Gardens Association http://pzd.pl/szukaj.html?mact=Search%2Ccntnt01%2Cdosearch%2C0&cntnt01returnid=111&cntnt0 1searchinput=Przewodnik+po+ustawie&passthru_CGBlog_kategoria=&passthru_CGBlog_autor=&pas sthru_CGBlog_okreg=&passthru_CGBlog_typ=&passthru_CGBlog_adresat=&submit=Szukaj [cited 10.12.2018]. Guitart, D., Pickering, C., Byrne, J., 2012. Past results and future directions in urban community gardens research. Urban forestry & urban greening. 11(4), 364-373. GUS 2017, Central Statistical Office Hencelová, P., 2018. Komunitnézáhrady v Bratislave: sociálny a priestorový aspect témy. Diplomovápráca. UniverzitaKomenského v Bratislave. 79 p.

Ioannou B., Morán N., Sondermann, M., Certomá Ch., Hardman M., 2016. Grassroots gardening movements: towards cooperative forms of green urban development? Urban allotment gardens in Europe. 84-112. Kałużna, M., Mizgajski, A., 2016. Community gardens in Poland – impulse, assistance, expansion. In Tappert, S., Drilling, M., eds. Growing in Cities. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Urban Gardening. In: Proceedings of the Conference, Basel, Switzerland: University of Applied Sciences. 106-118. Keshavarz, N., Bell, S., 2016. A history of urban gardens in Europe. in: Bell, Simon; Fox-Kämper, Runrid; Keshavarz, Nazila; Benson, Mary; Caputo, Silvio; Noori, Susan; Voigt, Annette (Eds.). Urban allotment gardens in Europe. 8-32.

ro of

Kowalewski, M., 2013. Organizowanie miejskiego aktywizmu w Polsce: Kongres Ruchów Miejskich. Social Space Journal.6, 99-126. Kubicki, P., 2011. Nowi mieszczanie–nowi aktorzy na miejskiej scenie. Przegląd Socjologiczny. 2(60), 203-227. Kurtz, H., 2001. Differentiating multiple meanings of garden and community. Urban Geography, (7)22, 656-670.

-p

Limb M., Dwyer C. (Eds)., 2001. Qualitative methodologies for geographers: Issues and debates. Arnold, London.

re

Lohrberg, F., Lička, L., Scazzosi, L., Timpe, A. (Eds.), 2016. Urban agriculture Europe. Jovis. 230 p.

lP

Macková, B., 2016. Komunitnézáhrady v Bratislave: longform pre denníkDenník N. Bakalárska práca. Masarykova univerzita. 95. Maćkiewicz, B., Asuero, R. P., Pawlak, K., 2018. Reclaiming Urban Space: A Study of Community Gardens in Poznań. Quaestiones Geographicae, 37(4), 131-150.

na

Malinowska A., 2015. Ogrody aktywizujące społeczności. ZieleńMiejska. 12: 42-44.

ur

Municipal Multimedia Guide - the official portal of the City of Poznań. http://www.poznan.pl/ [cited 20.12.2018]. Nettle, C., 2014. Community gardening as a social action. London: Ashgate Publishing.

Jo

Philips, A. ,2013. Designing urban agriculture: a complete guide to the planning, design, construction, maintenance, and management of edible landscapes. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley and Sons Inc., 276 s. Prové, C., Dessein, J., de Krom, M., 2016. Taking context into account in urban agriculture governance: Case studies of Warsaw (Poland) and Ghent (Belgium). Land Use Policy.56, 16-26. Redwood, M. (Ed.), 2012. Agriculture in urban planning: generating livelihoods and food security. Routledge. 272 p. Rosol, M. (2010). Public participation in post‐Fordist urban green space governance: The case of community gardens in Berlin. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(3), 548-563.

SCDSM. 2014. Study of Conditions and Directions of Spatial Management of City Poznań. Studium Uwarunkowań i Kierunków Zagospodarowania Przestrzennego Miasta Poznania, [cited 15.12.2018]. Available online: http://www.mpu.pl/plany.php?s=6&p=294 Skrzypczak, B., 2016. Ogród sąsiedzki–miejsce które skupia ludzi. Warszawa Lokalnie. Spatial Management Plan of Bratislava. 2007. [cited 15.2.2018]. 290 p. plus attachments. Available online: https://bratislava.sk/sk/uzemny-plan. Spilková, J., 2017. Producing space, cultivating community: the story of Prague´ s new community gardens. Agriculture and Human Values, 34(4), 887-897. Szczepańska M., Staszewska S., 2016. Znaczenie ogrodnictwa miejskiego w procesie rewitalizacji. Problemy Rozwoju Miast. Kwartalnik Naukowy Instytutu Rozwoju Miast. 3: 33–43.

ro of

ŠUSR 2017, Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic.

Šuška, P., 2014. Politické a diskurzívne príležitosti lokálneho environmentálneho aktivizmu: prípad premien bratislavského ochranárstva. Sociológia-Slovak Sociological Review. 46(1), 60-87.

-p

van der Jagt, A. P., Szaraz, L. R., Delshammar, T., Cvejić, R., Santos, A., Goodness, J., Buijs, A., 2017. Cultivating nature-based solutions: The governance of communal urban gardens in the European Union. Environmental research. 159, 264-275.

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

Zimbler, R. L. ,2011. Community Gardens on the Urban Land Use Planning Agenda. Master’s Thesis, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina. 31 p.

Table 1 Comparison of allotment and community gardens Allotment garden -plot administered by municipality/city/organisation - a fee to rent a plot

Community garden - plot administered by municipality/city/organisation /institution (e.g. school) - a fee to rent a plot or without fee - sometimes a membership fee (e.g. costs associated with water charges, rent) - usually easy to join (get a bed to grow)

Accessibility

- usually semi-public (the single plot private, but the paths through the site and other facilities regularly public) - usually surrounded by several allotment plots/gardens in the adjacent urban areas/green areas, also technical areas (floodplains, space along roads or railway tracks) - family and family members - the area is tended individually

- usually open to the public

re

-p

ro of

Criterion Land and ownership

- usually placed individually within the urban space on vacant or unused locations within the urban space

- the community of different regularly non-related people - the area is usually tended collectively Dominant function - family recreation, gardening, - social interaction, community food growing building, food growing Land use planning - encoded in the planning system - usually not categorized in the planning system status - usually long duration status - usually temporary status Source: Authors elaboration based on Barthel et al. (2010), Zimbler (2011), Borčić et al. (2016), Drake and Lawson (2014), Ghose and Pettygrove (2014), Ioannou et al. (2016), Szczepańska and Staszewska (2016), Lohrberg et al. (2016), Prové et al. (2016), Cabral (2017), van der Jagt et al. (2017), Maćkiewicz et al. (2018).

Jo

ur

People involved

na

lP

Location

Table 2 Typology of governance structure in community gardens Description

1

Top-down

The community garden is entirely managed by professionals (e.g. teachers, community development workers), and, where they existed, management committees have no local community representation

2

Top-down with community help

The community garden is planned, established, or managed by paid professionals with community involvement

Bottom-up with professional help

The community garden is established and managed by local communities with the help of paid professionals who later adopt a more supportive role, and the local community takes more responsibility

Bottom-up with informal help

The community garden is established and managed by local communities with the informal (unpaid) and unstructured involvement of professionals

Bottom-up

The community garden is run and managed, almost exclusively, by local communities. They might get some external support from time to time

4

re

5

-p

3

ro of

Structure of governance

Jo

ur

na

lP

Source: Authors elaboration based on Fox-Kämper et al. (2018) adaptation of typology originated by McGlone et al. (1999)

Table 3 The spatial, functional and demographic characteristics of Bratislava and Poznań in the context of greenery Bratislava

Poznań

Total city area

367.9 km²

261.91 km²

Area of arranged and unarranged green space

40.65 km2

44.53 km2

Share of total green space in the city area

11.05%

17.00%

Area of agricultural land

134.7 km2 (36.6%)

80.61 km2 (30.8%)

Built-up and urbanised areas

133.7 km2 (36.3%)

118.11 km2 (45.1%)

Number of allotment gardens

117

86

Area of allotment gardens

3.3 km2

Population

429,564

Population density

1,177 people per km²

Total green space area per capita (m2)

94.6 m2 per capita

82.40 m2 per capita

Estimated number of community gardens

12

7

ro of

Parameters

8.2 km2

538,633

re

-p

2,057 people per km²

Jo

ur

na

lP

Source: Authors elaboration based on research and statistical data: for Poznań (GUS, 2017) for Bratislava (ŠUSR, 2017; City plan of Bratislava, 2007)

Table 4a Functional and spatial characteristics of analysed community gardens in Bratislava

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

n.a.

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

re

+

lP

+

+

+

+

+

ur

Jo

+

+

ro of

+

-p

+

+

na

open to public Acce open only to ss members/loc al community individual activists/loca l community business Initi companies/l ator ocal business and NGO sector, coassociations auth city/city ors districts authorities school, university Designer´s engagement and consultation individual activists / local Coo community pera business tion companies/l with ocal business exte NGO sector, rnal associations sect city / city or districts authorities school, university Structure of governance (according to table 3 in text) total number of members Me age structure mbe (C-children, rshi Y- youth, Ap adults, Sseniors)

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

4→5

2→3

4→5

2→ 3

4

+

+

5

4

4

5

4

5

30

11 130

19

32

10

50

14

15

13

15

C,Y, A,S

Y, A

A, S

C,Y,A, S

C,A

C,A, S

C,A, S

Y,A

Y,A

n.a.

C,A,S

I, S

N

I

N

N

N

A

V

V

A, B

A

V

B, V

C, B

B

C, B

B

C, R,

C

-p re

lP S

N

U

U

N, I

V

ro of

N

C, O

C

C, B

C, B

C

C

S

C, S

C

E

E

A

E

R

I, T

I

R

R

R

I

Jo

ur

na

character of members (N neighbourho od, I institution/or ganisation, Uuniversity/sc hool students, S strangers) membership fee (A annual fee, B - fee for seedbed/box ,Vvoluntary) grants/donat ions (C Subs city/city idies district/regio n/governme nt, grants, Bbusiness/NG O/foundatio n/university support, O other) Fun basic ctio ns (C culti vati on, Rrecr eati supplementa on, ry Ddec orati on, Eedu cati on, A-

A

S

C

ro of

focus on culture, art, social aspects etc.

+

+

+

-p

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

A,B,C ,FG,R ,T,W

A,B, C,F, R,T, W

A,B, G,FG ,T,W

A,C A,C ,E, ,FG F, ,R,T W

A,B ,FG ,R,T

na

+

lP

re

focus on cultivation, planting, gardening, ecology

(A arbor/pergol a, B barbecue site, C composter, E - eco hotel, F - elevated flowerbeds, FG fence/gate, Ggreenhouse, W - drinking watersource, Pplayground,

Jo

ur

activ atio n of local com mun ity, Iinte grati on, Ssoci aliza tion, Tther apy, Cu cult ure) Acti vitie s for local com mun ity (wor ksho ps, train ings, eve nts)

Facil ities

A,C, FG,R ,T,W

A, B, F, T

A,B,C, FG,F, R,T,W

A,C,F A,B,C, G,G,A, FG,G, T,R,W T,R,W

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ W

W

W

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

W

W

lP

ur

na

Source: Authors elaboration based on extended participatory research

Jo

W

-p

W

+

ro of

+

re

R - rainwater tank, T - tool shed, O other amenities) ornamental Plan plants t vegetables, ele herbs men fruits ts in high com greeneryposi trees tion lawn Spatial order (W well-maintained/N neglected) n.a. data not avail able

W

N

W

W

Table 4b Functional and spatial characteristics of analysed community gardens in Poznań

CG6 _PO +

CG7_P O +

2013 +

2013

2014 +

2017 +

2015 +

2017 +

C

C

PA

PA

PA

P

R, G

R, G, S

R

+

+

+

ro of

PA

R, G

R

+

+

R, S

R, G

+

+

+

-p

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ +

+

na

ur

Jo

2013 +

+

lP

Locatio inner city/city districts n city periphery/suburb Establishment less then 1, 000 m2 Area more then 1, 000 m2 Land ownership (PA - public land, P - private land, C - cooperative ownership) Nearest surrounding (R residential areas, S - services, I industry, F - farmland, G greenery, Ri - riversides, U university) open to public open only to Access members/local community individual activists/local community business Initiator companies/local and co- business authors NGO sector, associations city/city districts authorities school, university Designer´s engagement and consultation individual activists / local community business Cooper companies/local ation business with NGO sector, externa associations l sector city / city districts authorities school, university Structure of governance (according to table 3 in text) total number of Membe members rship age structure (C-

Community gardens in Poznan (CG_PO) CG1_P CG3_P CG4 CG5 CG2_PO O O _PO _PO + + + + +

re

Functional and spatial characteristics

+ +

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

4

5

20 C, A, S

+ + +

+

+

+

4

2

2

1

2→3

45

10

10

30

40

20

C,Y,A,S

A, S

A

C, A

C,Y

C, A

V

V

V

C, B

C,B

C, B

Cu, E, I

E, I, Cu

R, E, Cu

N

N

U

N, S

V

ro of

N

C, B

C, B

B

C

I, A, R, E

E, C

A, I, R, E

A, I, E, C

C

I

D,T

R

na

lP

re

-p

basic

N, S

supplementary

A, C, R

C, R

C, A, I

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Jo

Functio ns (C cultivati on, R recreati on, Ddecorat ion, E educati on, Aactivati on of local commu nity, Iintegrat ion, S socializ ation, Ttherapy , Cu culture) Activitie s for local commu

N

ur

Subsidi es

children, Y- youth, Aadults, S-seniors) character of members (N - neighbourhood, I institution/organisatio n, U - university/school students, S - strangers) membership fee (A annual fee, B - fee for seedbed/box, V voluntary) grants/donations (C city/city district/region/govern ment, grants, Bbusiness/NGO/foundat ion/university support, O - other)

focus on cultivation, planting, gardening, ecology focus on culture, art,

social aspects etc.

A,B,C,F,W, P,FG,O

A,C,E,F ,R,O

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ + + + +

W

W

N

ur

na

Source: Authors elaboration based on extended participatory research

Jo

+ + +

-p

+

FG

A,C,F ,O

B,W, F,O

C,E,F,F G,O,T

ro of

F,P,W, R,T,O

lP

(A - arbor/pergola, B barbecue site, C composter, E - eco hotel, F - elevated flowerbeds, FG Facilitie fence/gate, G s greenhouse, W drinking watersource, P-playground, R rainwater tank, T - tool shed, O - other amenities) ornamental plants Plant elemen vegetables, herbs ts in fruits compos high greenery-trees ition lawn Spatial order (W - wellmaintained/N - neglected)

re

nity (worksh ops, training s, events)

W

+ + + +

+ +

+ + +

+

+ W

W

W