IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON Faculty of Natural Sciences

Centre for Environment Policy

Lambeth community gardens and cooperative approaches for sustainable development. By David Boyce

A report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MSc in Environmental Technology

September 2010

Abstract
A study was conducted into Lambeths community gardens in order to examine their present and potential value towards sustainable development, particularly in terms of cooperative approaches and social sustainability. Through interviews and questionnaires value was found to manifest in many ways amongst gardens, ultimately highlighting a diverse pool of collective wealth, which if harnessed to its full potential could transform the relationships of Lambeth residents to food and their urban environments. In the consideration of what cooperative approaches might entail, numerous and varied examples were explored and it became apparent that the future trajectory of collaborative approaches could take many passages. Cooperative relationships were found to exist between many gardens with considerable scope for future development. Many of those who took part in interviews expressed a clear intention to contribute to the further formation of schemes and strategies that would enable the borough to become more conscious of sustainability issues. The relevance of key stakeholders such as the Lambeth Council and Transition Town Brixton (a local community movement) were also evaluated and it was concluded that the roles of such organisations should primarily be to encourage and facilitate future action, allowing gardens to develop their own vision of how they wished to progress. Finally, recommendations were made for those involved in community gardens, for those involved in business and for those involved in Local government for enhancing the collaborative potential of Lambeth community gardens in relation to sustainable development.

Acknowledgements
I would like to express the deepest gratitude for all those who have contributed in any way, however small to the successful completions of this project. I am particularly indebted to the many fantastic individuals who took the time and effort to contribute to interviews and questionnaires. Particular thanks should go to Susan Sheehan, Penny Noy and Duncan Law and Jon Knight who have provided much valuable input on numerous occasions. Special thanks go to my family and all my close friends who have provided much support and encouragement throughout the project duration.

Contents
1 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 2.1 2.2 Aims and outputs .................................................................................................................. 8 Research styles .................................................................................................................... 10 Components of research ..................................................................................................... 11 Literature review .......................................................................................................... 11 Targeted interviews ...................................................................................................... 12 Questionnaires for community gardeners ................................................................... 13 Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 9

2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 3 3.1 3.2

Literature Review ....................................................................................................................... 14 The need for sustainable development as a unifying concept............................................ 14 The Sustainable Development Strategy and relevance of community gardens .......... 16 Value as capital............................................................................................................. 19 Value as well being and health..................................................................................... 22 Value through connections .......................................................................................... 24 The value that community gardens provide to sustainable development ......................... 19 3.1.1 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.3 3.4

Cuba, community gardens and cooperative approaches to sustainable development ...... 26 The context of Lambeth ...................................................................................................... 28 Interviews ............................................................................................................................ 31 The respondents .......................................................................................................... 31

Results and analysis ................................................................................................................... 31 4.1 4.1.1

4.1.2 What role do you think community gardens have in a wider transition of society to sustainability? ............................................................................................................................ 32 4.1.3 What realistic potential do you see for future expansion of community gardening activities in Lambeth in terms of the creation of new projects? ............................................... 35 4.1.4 How important is cooperation between gardens when considering the potential for sustainability in Lambeth? ......................................................................................................... 38 4.1.5 What are the main limitations to developing cooperation? ........................................ 41 4.1.6 What potential is there for gardens to form wider beneficial relationships with business of both small and large scales? ................................................................................... 43 4.1.7 How could local and national government help community gardens in contributing more towards sustainable development? ................................................................................. 45 4.1.8 How could local authorities help to facilitate cooperation between community gardens? ......................................................................................................................................... 48 4.2 Questionnaires for community gardeners .......................................................................... 49 Personal information .................................................................................................... 49 Garden Creation ........................................................................................................... 50 Personal activity ........................................................................................................... 52 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3

4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.2.7 4.2.8 4.2.9

Value and Purpose ....................................................................................................... 53 Personal and community well being ............................................................................ 54 Connecting with people ............................................................................................... 55 Connecting with the environment ............................................................................... 56 Connecting with food ................................................................................................... 58 Garden level functioning .............................................................................................. 59

4.2.10 Sharing skills, knowledge and expertise ...................................................................... 60 4.2.11 Challenges and opportunities ...................................................................................... 61 5 Discussion and Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 62 5.1 Commenting on the quality of data .................................................................................... 62 The interview ............................................................................................................... 62 The questionnaire ........................................................................................................ 63 5.1.1 5.1.2

5.2 What ways and to what extent are Lambeth community gardens creating and facilitating value relevant for sustainable development? ................................................................................ 63 5.3 What is the relevance of cooperative interactions between community gardens and other forms of organisation in delivering sustainable development? ..................................................... 66 5.4 What realistic potential might there be for developing further cooperative activity around Lambeth community garden projects. ........................................................................................... 67 6 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 70 6.1 Recommendations for individuals and community groups on how they could use their garden cooperatively in the transition to a sustainable society. ................................................... 70 6.2 Recommendations for businesses, organisations and other initiatives linked to community gardens in how they could work with community garden projects in order to aid in efforts towards sustainability..................................................................................................................... 71 6.3 Recommendations for policy makers and local government on what can be done to facilitate community garden activity that would contribute to sustainable development objectives. .......................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................. 71 7 References .................................................................................................................................. 72

Introduction

'Community garden' is a loose fitting term which can encompass a diverse range of collectively managed spaces used by many different people for many different purposes. Ultimately the variability of community gardens reflects the pluralism and diversity inherent within the notion of community itself (Ferris 2002). Whether providing a source of food, a vibrant social space, a biodiverse area of ecological significance, a tranquil island in a busy city, a setting for interactive education or a source of complementary medicine, community gardens have been acknowledged to offer much value within society. Indeed, they have already been suggested as useful integrative models for bringing about sustainable development in urban areas (Holland 2004).

Over the last few decades there has been a notable increase internationally in activities around community gardening. This has been accompanied by a developing interest in what community gardens might represent within modern societies facing immense environmental, economic and social challenges (Ferris et al. 2002). Arguably community gardening in the UK today embodies the convergence of several important society-shaping trends.

On one hand grass-roots movements such as Transition Towns, are triggering local communities to self-organise towards sustainability by visioning new ways of developing resilience within society (Hopkins 2008). These movements are aiding in the emergence and development of organisations, alliances, initiatives and networks geared towards supporting communities, especially in relation to low energy, localised food production.

On the other hand local governments are becoming increasingly innovative with regards to developing and delivering new policies designed to bring about sustainable development. This is in accordance with both national policy, such as the UK Sustainable Development Strategy (DEFRA 2005), and broader frameworks derived internationally, such as Local Agenda 21 (UNCED 1992, ICLEI 1995). The London borough of Islington has already developed a food strategy aiming to develop greater self-sufficiency for food production within the borough (Islington Council 2009). With politically backed partnerships such as the Major of Londons and London Food Links Capital Growth Scheme, which has set a target to facilitate 2,012 community growing spaces in London by

the end of 2012, opportunities and incentives for developing community garden projects have never been greater.

At the same time there is also a very powerful reinvigoration of the 'grow your own' mentality within the UK psyche and this can be clearly seen in recent media fashions. For example a recent BBC 2 show called The Edible Garden put a strong emphasis on the potential for ordinary households to become more self-sufficient in fruit and vegetables. According to Guy Barter of the Royal Horticultural Society more food is being grown in peoples back-gardens now, than for a generation (Barter 2010).

The recent convergence of UK society in activities around community gardens therefore signals to a potentially important opportunity. A chance for the development of shared solutions to accumulating problems created by an unsustainable society. The suggestion that we 'must build landscapes that heal, connect and empower, that make intelligent our relations with each other and with the natural', made by Wilson in Irvine (1999), taken from Holland (2004), captures well the spirit of community gardening.

The London borough of Lambeth offers a particularly fascinating area for studying community gardens due to recent developments in the spread of collaborative environmental initiatives. The last two years is notable for the growth of Transition Town Brixton (TTB), which has its very own food group endorsing, amongst other approaches, the ecologically integrated permaculture philosophy, which through ethical and design principles aims to enable individuals to structure more sustainable lifestyles. Also notable is the rapid growth in popularity of an environmental networking site known as Project Dirt, which allows people to create an easily accessible web presence for new projects, whilst simultaneously forming new linkages by joining others. Many of the existing activities on Project Dirt relate directly to community growing (Project Dirt 2010).

Alongside these fast developing networks Lambeth Council has been playing a vital role in proactively facilitating and supporting new community-based projects. It is particularly significant that the council has begun to recognise value created independently by communities dealing with sustainability issues. Newly appointed council officers have introduced an initiative called Green Community Champion which supports and encourages proactive individuals in the setting up of their own projects orientated towards sustainability concerns. Such activities are backed up by

national government targets held within the Local Strategic Partnerships, which includes Local Area Agreements and the Sustainable Communities Strategy (DEFRA 2005).

According to current records in Lambeth Council the borough is now host to well over 60 community growing projects (many newly developed this year), including 15 on council estates and a range of others of on public parks or previously disused land (publicly or privately owned) (Personal communication with Sheehan, S. 27/4/2010). With so much interest developing around the idea of community gardens and with increasingly concentrated activity in local areas like Lambeth it is worth seriously considering the further roles that they could play in fostering wider-reaching unified activity orientated towards sustainable development. This is especially relevant when considering the gap of trust commonly encountered between scientists, policy makers and the public. For instance, over the last five years in the UK, there has been a significant decrease in the public perception of climate change as a priority issue (down from 92% to 78%) despite greater activity on the issue from the government and private sectors (Spence et al. 2010). If the necessary action is to be taken with regards to moving society towards sustainability, there needs to be a closer accord between the general public, government bodies, science and business, all of whom have vital roles to play. If community gardens can serve as exemplars of sustainability and catalysts for change within modern society, then they offer an important area for stakeholder engagement around sustainability issues, deserving greater serious attention from those interested and involved in planning and policy matters.

There is a need for action-orientated research that ties together the work of citizens, communities, collaborative networks, organisations, academics, businesses and local government in order to frame possibilities for concerted efforts around such projects. To get the best out of community gardens/growing projects the potential contribution of multiple stakeholders needs to be considered. At the same time ambitious visions of future potentials, need to be approached through the sober realities of existing difficulties, limitations and issues which could be seen as confounding the potential that gardens/growing projects offer.

During a conversation with Susan Sheehan, one of the Green Communities Champion Officers at Lambeth council it became apparent that there was a need for documentation of recent activities in community garden development in order to improve the efficacy of continued community support. Also required was relevant data that could help inform the development of a new food

strategy. Similar conversations with members of the TTB food group revealed a need to keep track of recent developments in local community gardens in order to become aware of needs in skills and knowledge as well as material and financial resources.

Also significant is Lambeth Councils recent move to establish itself as a 'Cooperative Council', an idea developed and put forward by local Labour Counsellor Steve Reed (Lambeth Council 2010). This concept is founded upon the idea of co-production whereby citizens, community groups, businesses and local government work together deliberatively in order to share responsibility and control over delivery of public services (Horne & Shirley 2010). This will be of great salience in the face of predicted cuts coming from the new coalition government.

1.1 Aims and outputs

The aim of this project is to therefore to develop and understanding of the present roles that community gardens in Lambeth have in providing cooperative approaches towards sustainable development, whilst at the same time considering the potential for future cooperative activities.

This will be addressed with three main questions:

1.

What ways and to what extent are Lambeth community gardens creating and facilitating value relevant for sustainable development?

1.

What is the relevance of cooperative interactions between community gardens and other forms of organisation in delivering sustainable development?

2.

What realistic potential might there be for developing further cooperative activity around Lambeth community garden projects.

An important point to note at this stage is that though research is framed around activities in Lambeth, other than political boundaries, this demarcation is somewhat arbitrary. The project sees these boundaries as useful for managing the scope of this research; however, this does not mean to suggest that cooperative activities should not transcend these boundaries. It is important to

realise that beneficial relations can and should be developed between boroughs. Indeed this is likely to be an important part of both collective learning and the building of local resilience relevant to future threats.

In addressing the above questions there will be three outputs in the form of recommendations. These recommendations will aim to avoid dogma, rather acting as signposts intended to help guide future ideas and activities. A distinction will be made between recommendations which may only be relevant to the area of Lambeth and those which may be more general

1.

Recommendations for individuals and community groups on how they could use their gardens cooperatively in the transition to a sustainable society.

2.

Recommendations for businesses, organisations and other initiatives linked to community gardens in how they could work with community garden projects in order to aid in efforts towards sustainability.

3.

Recommendations for policy makers and local government on what can be done to facilitate community garden activity that would contribute to sustainable development objectives.

Methodology

Because community gardening and growing can be seen to touch on issues relevant to many disciplines and areas of interest, there are a wide variety of approaches that could be employed in creating a research design for such a project. It would be very easy to choose one specific area of study in meeting the objective. For instance it would be possible to dedicate a whole research project to how Lambeth community gardens work together around one area such as biodiversity, environmental education or food growing. However this project aims to take a more integrative approach in order to understand the wider potentials for community garden cooperation throughout the borough, making it more concerned with the interfaces between different areas of interest rather than narrowing the scope as to appear reductionist. This is important because community gardens are connected to many different elements within society and it is pragmatic to consider opportunities to for mutually beneficial cross-workings between different types of stakeholder. It also means that a wider range of opinions will be encompassed and this is vital in

identifying contrasting agendas and limiting factors.

2.1 Research styles

There are already several models of research with many variations that are relevant when addressing community related study areas including community-based research and action research. The features of these kinds of research have been summarised by various authors. For instance the following text taken from Burns (1999) identifies some common features of action research:

Action research is contextual, small-scale, localized, it identifies and investigates problems within a specific situation.

It is evaluative and reflective as it aims to bring about change and improvement in practice. It is participatory as it provides for collaborative investigation by teams of colleagues, practitioners, and researchers.

Changes in practice are based on the collection of information or data which provides the impetus for change.

A Community-based approach constitutes another important methodology and the following text take from Israel et al. (1998) identifies nine guiding principles:

Recognizes community as an unit of identity Builds on strengths and resources within the community Facilitates collaborative, equitable involvement of all partners in all phases of the research Integrates knowledge and intervention for mutual benefit of all partners Promotes a co-learning and empowering process that attends to social inequalities Involves a cyclical and iterative process Addresses health from both positive and ecological perspectives Disseminates findings and knowledge gained to all partners Involves long-term commitment by all partners.

This project aims to incorporate elements of both action and community-based research where

possible but will not follow a strict model. For instance though this project aims to focus around a relatively small area identifying opportunities grounded in the context of information gathered from locality, it also aims to contribute to a wider understanding of how such-community based projects are relevant to sustainable development. Conversely, this project aims to take account of knowledge from wider contexts than the study area in order to enrich and inform the overall understanding and value that may be contributed. However, this research ultimately intends to be for the benefit of the communities it represents in Lambeth. The work is not interested with imposing conclusions from dissociated academia, neither is it interested in using communities as a vehicle to generate theories or prove hypotheses relevant only to marginal interest groups. Instead, through a cyclical process of evaluation and reflection this project aims to explore wide ranging perspectives in order to tease out the areas of greatest common significance in the process becoming aware of possibilities for further shared activity.

The degree of participation in the research should reflect the circumstances and desire among community members to participate. The framing of this study has developed as the result of numerous conversations with people involved in local sustainability initiatives related to food growing and community gardens. On broaching the subject with various relevant individuals, it became apparent that as a general rule many involved in such projects had little available free time. Therefore a full blown participatory methodology involving multiple deliberative meetings with a specially constructed steering committee would be impractical for many and indeed could prove difficult in relation to time constraints. A more suitable approach in the context of this project was to allow the direction of the research to be guided by informal interactions and an evolution of understanding of what would be relevant to the communities involved.

2.2 Components of research

2.2.1 Literature review

There are three main strands to the content of this research project. The first of these is a literature review which will involve an exploration of sustainable development as a unifying concept applicable for community gardens. This will explore the different ways in which value relevant for sustainable development can be conceptualised and found to manifest through community gardening activities. This is a very important issue because in the development of

collaborative approaches an understanding is required of the different ways in which groups might construct their understanding around a shared objective such as sustainable development. An appreciation for the way in which different underlying values an assumptions direct action should ultimately lead to increased, tolerance, flexibility and adaptability in the generation of any cooperative strategies. Next the example of urban agriculture in Cuba will be considered as an example of collaborative community garden approaches. Finally the local contexts relevant for this research will be evaluated including reference to noteworthy projects, organisations and local policy initiatives. 2.2.2 Targeted interviews

The second part of the research will involve corroborating and analysing responses offered during 10-15 one-to-one interviews with conducted in person or on the telephone. Individuals will be chosen based on their relevance to the fields of community gardening and local sustainability initiatives. These individuals will include members of community gardens, members of local council and other organisations and initiatives. The interviews will be semi-structured with questions areas themed around the role that community gardens in Lambeth might play in facilitating beneficial connections and aiding the transition of society towards sustainability. The questions will be mostly forward looking, drawing together different perspectives in order to identify important future considerations for those interested in community gardens.

Before questions are asked, the aims and objectives of the research will be explained to the participants. Participants will be asked to respond in whatever way they feel relevant and will be encouraged to draw on any specific examples or experience which they can think of.

2.2.2.1 Broad question areas

1.

What role do you think community gardens have in a wider transition of society to sustainability?

2.

What realistic potential do you see for future expansion of community gardening activities in Lambeth in terms of the creation of new projects?

3.

How important is cooperation between gardens when considering the potential for sustainability in Lambeth.

4. 5.

What are the main limitations to developing cooperation? What potential is there for gardens to form wider beneficial relationships with both small and large scale business?

6.

How could local and national government help community gardens in contributing more towards sustainable development?

7.

How could Lambeth Council help to facilitate cooperation between community gardens?

The presentation of results and analysis of interviews will be combined. Responses from interviews will be broken down and synthesised according to thematic areas so that contrasts and convergences can be drawn out and evaluated in terms of significance and relevance. In this way a broad picture can gradually be built up.

2.2.3 Questionnaires for community gardeners

A third part of the research will involve a comprehensive questionnaire for community gardeners. The questionnaire will provide options for both quantitative and qualitative analysis but analysis will depend upon the level of response. The questions will focus on the issues of value creation, links to other networks and projects, logistical matters, as well as exploring the opportunities for further collaborative activities. There will be a mixture of fixed response questions, for instance fixed option selection answers, and agree/disagree types questions where responses will be along a linear scale. There will be questions which request specific facts as well as questions which probe for perceptions, opinions or value judgements. A range of different responses types will enable cross validation to give strength to conclusions and point to any possible inconsistencies.

The sampling strategy will be to collect responses from as many different Lambeth based gardens as possible and will involve a degree of 'snowballing' whereby one contact leads to another. The questionnaire will be distributed using a variety of methods. An invitation to take part in the questionnaire will be put out via a range of different mailing lists including the Green Community Champions mailing list (dealt with by the Green Community Champions Officers at Lambeth Council). A web page will be constructed on the Project Dirt website with a link to the questionnaire and an email address to respond to. People will also be invited to take part through advertising the project on other projects pages on the Project Dirt website. In addition, contacts from the council database of community gardens will be emailed. Other respondents will be

acquired through face to face meetings at relevant networking events for community gardens. The questionnaire is divided up into eleven following sections:

2.2.3.1 Broad question areas

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Personal information Garden Creation Personal activity Value and Purpose Personal and community well being Connecting with people Connecting with environment Connecting with food Garden level functioning Sharing skills, knowledge and expertise Challenges and opportunities

Literature Review

3.1 The need for sustainable development as a unifying concept

The global environment's capacity to support human civilisation into the next few centuries is under immense threat. Highly structured self-ordering natural systems, which represent the source of all forms of wealth (Parkin 2000), are rapidly being degraded by unsustainable forms of culture and society. In developing pathways to sustainability, modern human societies need to become more advanced in the way in which they value and relate to such systems. If Individuals, groups and societies fail to recognise and account for value within the systems they operate, then it is likely that they will act in ways which neglect those sources of value and ultimately undermine their own existence.

Modern notions of sustainable development ('development which meets the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs' (WCED 1987)) offer one starting point for evolving human societies towards more sensitive, nuanced relationships with natural systems, where value is recognised and respected. The notions rely on renewed understanding of the types of value which need to be realised and integrated into human activity for the long term survival of the species. Different notions tend to treat value in different ways and are often underpinned by different ideological approaches but commonly recognise social, environmental and economic elements.

A three pillar model of sustainability is often used in politics and business and suggests that sustainability is met when criteria within three interdependent sociological, environmental and economic pillars converge. I.e. an approach doesn't unduly compromise the environment or the people within it and is able to support itself in material and financial terms (Adams 2006). However on its own this model does not make clear causal links between the three different areas of value, and this can lead to the idea that one value can be substituted with another (Dyllick & Hockerts2002). An alternative model is provided by Forum for the Future which conceptualises value relevant to sustainability as five nested levels of capital (stocks and flows of energy and materials) (Parkin 2000). The five capital model is represented by concentric circles containing natural, social, human, manufactured and financial capital. Representing the capitals in this nested way is intended to show how the stocks and flows of inner levels of capital are dependent upon the stocks and flows of outer levels of capital. This representation encourages the idea that natural capital is not substitutable and that value should be acknowledged as systematic integrity rather than as isolated areas of worth.

The vagueness of sustainable development as a term has often been used as a criticism against it (Pesqueux, 2009). Indeed some have said that it can be used to disguise political agendas of control (Aguirre, 2002). This can be appreciated especially if it is only applied as some kind of posthoc add-on to standard development policies. However framing sustainable development as a political tool is quite different from appreciating it as an inclusive guiding principle for any group with interest in making positive their interaction with the environment. Indeed sustainability is more a property of a system than it is an agreed set of values (Gallopin2003). Development towards sustainability cannot be constrained by any predetermined agenda and in many ways the vagueness of sustainability can be seen as an asset for presenting numerous groups and organisations with common footing for acknowledging a universal need. Indeed Leist and Holland

(2000) describe sustainable development as an organising concept that can introduce helpful ground rules of engagement and this is of particular importance when considering sustainability in relation to community gardens which attract the involvement of a wide variety of people (Armstrong 2000).

Though few would argue with the desirability of sustainability, the nature of values and approaches relevant for sustainable development are much more open to debate. How value is framed, prioritised and experienced will be reflected by a wide variety of personal contexts. It is therefore healthy to appreciate that any collaboration around the idea is likely to involve an orchestra of varied yet valid viewpoints, rather than one rigid model or set of criteria.

3.1.1 The Sustainable Development Strategy and relevance of community gardens

It is important to realise that the success of any concerted effort towards sustainability is likely to require strategies which consciously address issues such as well being, human inequality and the limits of ecosystem services (Porritt 2009). This means that strategies require an integrative approach, sensitivity to the values and circumstances of others, a sound evidential basis and adequate methodologies for recording, measuring, and interpreting progress. Interpreting progress is particularly important as it has been suggested that the cause of many of todays unsustainable patterns results from a failure to recognise indicators of progress as part of a holistic framework (Jackson and Maltby 2007).

The UK Sustainable Development Strategy, 'Securing the Future' (DEFRA, 2005), addresses such concerns and provides the following five underlying principle for approaching sustainable development as can be seen in Figure 1:

Figure 1 The five underlying principles for the UK Governments approach to sustainable development (DEFRA 2005)

Also significant within the report is a focus on the Sustainable Communities:

Our aim is to create sustainable communities that embody the principles of sustainable development at the local level. This will involve working to give communities more power and say in the decisions that affect them; and working in partnership at the right level to get things done.

Though the first line could be construed as top-down (many would prefer the government as facilitators rather than creators of communities) the statement clearly shows recognition of the importance of communities in bringing about sustainability. The 2005 report also announces the Community Action 2020 programme which can be seen as an encouragingly collaborative approach to sustainable development and is summarised in Fig 2 taken from the report:

Figure 2 Community action 2020:An integrated approach to developing sustainable communities (DEFRA 2005)

The 'engage' section is particularly relevant for this work, and highlights that the success of any community strategy requires the coherent integration of the main aspects of sustainable development into the workings of people's lives (Leist and Holland 2000). Spaces of engagement are needed for people to actively realise the meaning of sustainability, providing effective fora to enable the necessary constructive debates which harness the value of diverse perspectives. Community gardens conceivably provide such spaces within society.

3.2 The value that community gardens provide to sustainable development

Community gardens provide value relevant to multiple areas of society. Partly this is because there are many different types of community gardens. In studying a selection of community gardens Ferris et al. (2002) classified found eight common types:

Leisure gardens Child and school gardens Entrepreneurial gardens Crime diversion gardens/Work and training gardens Healing and therapy gardens/Quiet gardens Neighbourhood pocket parks Ecological restoration gardens/parks Demonstration gardens

However the wide ranging value to society also comes from the fact that each garden type can be seen as multifunctional. The activity of food growing alone has many environmental, social and economic dimensions and Quayle (2008) notes that thematic connections which allow single projects to deliver multiple benefits could be seen as the greatest value of all. Ultimately community gardens are versatile satisfying a range different constructs used to address sustainable development. In the following paragraphs value that community gardens provide will be considered in terms of capital, well being and network connectivity.

3.2.1 Value as capital

As mentioned above capital describes value as stock and flows of material and energy (Parkin 2000). It is created through the investment of time and effort into activities of exchange or transformation (Ostrom 1993). Many studies into community gardens reveal them as explicitly or implicitly host to a wide range of capitals.

3.2.1.1 Natural Capital

Improved natural capital is commonly reported through the use of organic techniques, composting activities, minimisation of waste and through reduced dependence on food systems which requires energy intensive production, processing and shipping (Hanckock 2001; Shmelzkopf 2002). Spirin (1984) notes the benefits community gardens provide to the physical environment through the increased presence of plants and trees. These include the filtering of pollutants from the air, oxygenation of the air, wind buffering, noise reduction, thermoregulation, reduced rainfall runoff, recycling of organic matter, and improved wildlife. Quayle (2008) found that biodiversity of an area was improved in 80% of cases where community gardens had been started.

3.2.1.2 Social Capital

There are many established links between community gardening and social capital. Defined by Putmen (1995) social capital can be thought of as the collective value of all 'social networks', including value in terms of increased inclination for people to do things for each other. Hanckock (2001) identifies that community gardens build this value because cohesive social networks are required in the organisation and management of gardens. Kingsley (2006) recognises the importance of community gardens in improving social cohesion (value sharing enabling coordinated action towards common aims), social support and social connections. Though Kingsley suggests that such benefits often have limited impact beyond the gardens themselves, a study by Armstrong (2000) found that that frequently wider neighbourhood level issues were dealt with through the organisation or facilitation of community gardens, especially in low-income neighbourhoods. Another study found that perceptions of community gardening activities were significantly associated with positive perceptions of social capital amongst residents, especially when gardens were linked to other neighbourhood wide meetings (Alaimo 2010). Doyle and Kransy (2003) identify that community gardens increase appreciation of social diversity, while Quayle (2008) found that community gardens contributed to a range of UK government targets on social issues, including social inclusion, unemployment, tackling obesity, youth disaffection and regeneration.

3.2.1.3 Economic Capital

Several economic benefits have been noted as a result of community gardening. Though gardening can be viewed as a costly activity, there are savings to be made through reduced expenditure on food. Food can also provide a source of income if sold on local markets or to local businesses. Gardens set up for homeless people have also helped in improving employability through the access to social networks and development of skills (Hanckock 2001). Benefits can also extend into increased housing prices. A study in New York found community gardens significantly increased the value of properties within a radius of a thousand feet. The greatest increases (9.4%) were found around well maintained gardens in lower income neighbourhoods and this was of obvious benefit to local authorities in terms of increased tax revenues (Voicu and Been 2008). Another study in New York found that community gardens are a cost-effective option for regeneration strategies because voluntary labour from members of the community represents 80% of project investment (Schmelzkopf 1995)

3.2.1.4 Human Capital

Defined by the OECD (1998) human capital can be described as the knowledge, skills and competences and other attributes embodied in individuals that are relevant to economic activity. Hanckock (2001) notes that community gardening activities can stimulate learning around environmental issues, healthy food, culture, gardening, cultures and issues of intergenerational justice. They are also said to develop important skills directly relevant for employment (Fusco 2001).

3.2.1.5 Cultural Capital

Cultural capital relates to the factors that allow societies to adapt to and modify their environments (Berke and Folke 1992). It can be appreciated in relation to the development of meanings and contextualised understandings which mediate human interactions with the environment. It corresponds to the way humanity makes sense of the world through philosophy, ethics, belief-systems, knowledge, politics, institutions and customs (Skolimowski 1981, Naess 1989, Ostrom 1990). As a concept it is perhaps the most abstract of the above notions of capital-

based value and is neither easy to measure or define, though community gardens provide some good examples. Milburn and Vail (2010) identify how community gardens can mould their functioning to fit the needs of society. I.e. providing food during a world war, providing opportunities for grassroots activism in the 1970s, as well as aiding concerted efforts towards sustainable lifestyles and community building in more modern times. Hanckock (2001) states that community gardens offer the potential to bridge ethno-racial divides through the sharing and creation of food cultures. Baker (2004) and Warner (2006) note how community gardens grow place-based cultures imbued with multiple meanings, which allow individuals to feel a sense of belonging or to better express their native cultures.

3.2.1.6 Transcending distinctions of capital

Despite its usefulness as a concept, ordering benefits and functions into groups of capital might be thought of as simplistic. Often one benefit can be seen as valid within multiple categories of capital. In addition an emergent value developing from a project is likely to be created by simultaneous inextricably linked environmental, human and social processes. Hanckock (2001) recognises this and introduces a concept he terms as community capital which is based on the simultaneous integration of all other capital forms in any given locality. It can be seen to connect and engage people within a geographic location through shared interest, social ties and cultural attributes (Flora and Gillespie 2009). The term community capital represents human-centred development goals achieved through investment in wider supporting system (Hanckock 2001, Flora and Gillespie 2009). Hancock (2001) acknowledges community gardens as providing an important example of such capital.

3.2.2 Value as well being and health

Hanckock (1993) notes that the concept of health can been seen as both a 'component and expression of human development' and Maltby and Jackson (2007) state that ultimately sustainable development is about living well within environmental limits. On this basis the ability of community gardens to foster health and well being can be considered important in framing their value towards sustainable development.

Examples of direct physical health benefits associated with community gardens include improved nutrition through increased access to healthy food (Irvine et al., 1999; Dickinson et al., 2003), and improved fitness through the exercise of gardening (Armstrong, 2000; Dickinson et al., 2003).

Community gardens are also documented for psychological health benefits (Armstrong, 2000). Clayton and Opotow (2003) note that Access to a nearby natural setting such as a park or garden, has been shown to strengthen cognitive awareness, memory, and general well-being and to decrease depression, boredom, loneliness, anxiety, and stress. However in addition to the benefits of being in natural settings the active engagement in nurturing activities combined with responsibility for plants makes gardening a meaningful experience for people (Lewis 1990). Such a sense of purpose can be appreciated as an important component of well being (Ryff 1989).

Indeed self-determination through community gardening activities is often recorded as a core value. A study into Toronto explains liberation of consumers to soil citizens whereby individuals become politically engaged co-creators with purpose. Gardeners become able on their own terms to carry out activities which embody a compassion for environment and community (Baker 2004). Ryan and Deci (2000) indentify self-determination as fulfilling basic human needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. They highlight such functions as necessary for psychological growth, integrity and vitality.

However community gardens can be seen to offer well-being benefits beyond the individual, and at a community level, gardens have been said to create a sense of goodwill, relax local political tensions, and improve wider social relations (2006). Schmelzkopf (1995) talks of how community gardeners in Louisiana report feeling part of the community and part of the land. This complements work by Austin and Kaplan (2003) where the participatory nature of creating and maintaining a community space is said to result in shared responsibility, ownership and connection leading to a neighbourhood wide sense of well-being. The benefits of good social relations combined with psychological benefits from being active in gardens has been shown to be valuable for healing both physical and psychological conditions (Francis et al., 1994) and probably explains why many gardens have primarily therapeutic objectives. Reductions in crime and increased perceptions of healthier neighbourhoods other are reported community level health benefits (Ferris et al., 2001, Shmelzkopf 2002).

Some powerful associations can also be made when considering community health and environmental issues together. For instance the activity of community gardening is said to foster the development of common goals amongst those involved (Shmelzkopf 1995) and Quayle's (2008) research on community gardens illustrates overlapping areas in perceptions related to health and environmental issues. This combination of factors is important, meaning community gardens enable people to experience well-being within the context of communal values and environmental sustainability. It is evident then that community gardens can be closely aligned with the idea of living well within environmental limits and may be important in delivering politically favourable 'double dividends' or win-win options which Maltby and Jackson (2007) speak of.

Viewing an individual or a system such as a community or society in terms of health and well being can be seen to provide an important complement to capital conceptions. Whereas capital engages logic and reason, health and well being encourage experiential dimensions invoking emotions around the idea caring for life. This is could be seen as an important element in motivating necessary action towards sustainability.

3.2.3 Value through connections

Another useful way of considering the value of gardens to sustainability is through their ability structure connections within the systems which they are part of. Very conceptually a well structured system could be thought to maximise mutually reinforcing relationships between all of its components. This would mean an optimisation of material, energetic and informational aspects of all interactions within and between all levels of functioning.

A study by Biel (2006) considers modern capitalism as a dissipative system which creates a 'mainstream' form of order (or wealth) at the expense of disorder being exported into physical ecosystems and subordinate parts of society. In effect the system is described as aggregating resources around one form of value (economic) at the expense of many others. To become more sustainable capitalist systems therefore need to evolve and sophisticate the ways in which they create and distribute order through the relationships they manifest.

The ability of community gardens to create order and facilitate the ordering of connections within society is a therefore an interesting consideration for value relevant to sustainable development.

Connections can be thought of as indirect and direct links between ideas, people, environments and institutions

Probably the most fundamental way in which community gardens can facilitate mutually beneficial connections is at the individual level. People tend plants and create space for wildlife and in return reap the benefit in many forms including improved well being. Many individuals talk of the need to 'get back to the land' and it might be said that personal relationships between individuals and natural systems are of the greatest importance when considering the need for unified engagement towards sustainability (Rodenburg 1994). In appreciating the value of nature there is unlikely to be a substitute for direct personal experience and it makes sense to suppose that the better the quality the experience, the more powerful the motivation of the individual will be to act upon it. Quayle's (2008) study suggests community gardens physically and psychologically reconnect people with natural systems, leading to greater environmental awareness, consequently promoting local effort around global environmental issues.

Community gardens can also facilitate beneficial links between individuals within a community. Many talk of community gardens as 'growing communities with the implicit suggestion that the development of social groups around gardening is a naturalistic way of forming community groups, nurturing relationships rather than forcing them (Wells et al. 1999). It could certainly be construed that relationships formed between individuals would be positively reinforced by the many documented well being benefits. Quayle (2008) notes how those involved in gardening become more socially active within their neighbourhoods and also notes how the activities of environmental improvement associated with gardening link to increased environmentally conscious practices and action on global issues within a wider neighbourhood. Another interesting point comes from the linking of growing activities with science and education whereby gardens can facilitate practical and informative workshops and courses (Quayle 2008).

However the ability of community gardens to enable the development of beneficial connections within society can be thought to extend beyond the level of individual communities and Milburn and Adams (2010) draw attention to the fact that wide ranging organisations work together forming networks which further harness the community building and local food related benefits of community gardens. Indeed Baker (2004) identifies that broader socio-cultural and geopolitical dimensions within a landscape of community gardens create opportunities for transforming whole

food systems and can birth movements which more greatly engage people with notions of citizenship and democratic politics. Katz (2003) notes how over time different layers of networks related to community gardens create landscapes where perceptions of environmental values and potentials for wider collective action are transformed. There is also an important point to be made on the ability of networks around gardens to bring about the types of political inclusivity deemed necessary for the social aspects of sustainability. In Toronto community gardens networks have been said to counteract hegemonic politics (Dirlik and Prazniak 2001), whilst in New York, coalitions between gardens have given citizens a unified voice to confront authorities over the selling of public land (used for gardens) to developers (Smith and Kutz 2003). Smith and Kutz (2003) also notes that networks around gardens are flexible, allowing adaptation to issues confronted on multiple spatial scales, whilst drawing upon resources from a wide range of stakeholders.

Community gardens can also seen as valuable in network formation as they can provide interfaces to many different thematic areas. Ziller (2004) contends that communities are often about interest and attachment as much as they are place. If a garden can be a hub for multiple interests and attachment then it can be dynamic in the way it functions and develops associations. However, community gardens are about place as well, so as people become more dependent on them for functions such as neighbourhood revitalization, community building and access to natural settings individual and collective identity becomes strongly bound to them (Nemore 1998, Francis 1989). Smith and Kurtz (2003) come to the conclusion that because gardens are spaces of dependence as much as they are spaces of engagement around interests, their value as anchoring points in the development of resilient networks is significant.

3.3 Cuba, community gardens and cooperative approaches to sustainable development

There are many ways in which community gardens can work collaboratively. Members of community gardens have been known to coordinate activities, formally or informally, with other gardens, households, community groups, NGOs, businesses, schools, universities, health services, local governments and through other networks (Feenestra 2009). Between gardens cooperation often means sharing knowledge, skills and resources such as tools, seed, and seedlings. Cooperation portential beyond direct links with other gardens is almost limitless and can be thought of as wide reaching as the people involved.

Obvious examples of cooperation around sustainable development themes could include strategies to facilitate education around energy saving, resource use and the science of climate change. However the development of sustainable food systems can be thought of as one of the central ways in which community gardens can work cooperatively. Internationally there have been several urban agricultural movements which have strongly involved community gardening. Cuba is a particularly important example.

Activities in Cuba at the beginning of the 1990s provide a now famous example of the potential for coordinated community growing. Cuba faced a severe economic crisis when the Soviet Bloc collapsed in 1989, the same time as a tightening of a US trade embargo. This resulted in a 50% reduction in oil, fertiliser and pesticide inputs plus a concordant 70% reduction in food imports. The biggest repercussions were felt in Havana and other city areas, where the combined effects of decreased rural agricultural production and decreased ability to transport and refrigerate food (owing to lack of oil), meant severe nutritional shortages (Chaplowe 1996).

Urban agriculture was made a priority within the country and with food produced using private gardens, state-owned research gardens (often known as organopnicos) and widespread community gardens (26,000 in 1995). The organisational structure would vary widely between gardens, sometimes being run cooperatively by communities and sometimes through state employed coordinators (Campanioni et al. 1996). The organopnicos gardens developed into a large scale experimental organic agricultural system with producers having an active stake in the development of new agro-ecological methods. Between 1994 to 2001 this contributed to 17-fold increases in yield per square meter (1.5 kg to 25.8 kg per square meter) helping Havana to reach 90% self-sufficiency for fruit and vegetable (Castelln 2003, Lotter 2009). The involvement of the state has been said to be very important for the success, playing an important role in providing resources such as growing space and water access, facilitating agricultural methods with lower oil dependency (e.g. through centres providing access to organic composts and biological pest control) and taking an active part in higher-level organisation. The state was able to help disseminate new knowledge generated from the experimental organopnicos plots enabling wide reaching improvements in the diversity and quality of food supply (Jason 2007). An obvious reason for the success of Cuba's movement towards food security is that the country found itself in circumstances where widespread action of citizens was absolutely necessary. The

fact that the population was willing work closely with the government and that the government was willing to commit resources, facilitate decentralised activity and allow community-based approaches is said to be of great importance (Knoot 2009).

Matching the conditions of Cuba may not be desirable or even possible within the UK. The ways in which community gardens create value and interact is thoroughly linked to their specific context (Troy et al. 2005). For instance activities are shaped by culture, politics, economics, infrastructure, environment and climate amongst many other things. It is important therefore to appreciate that different baseline situations mean that methods and approaches that work on one place may not be successful elsewhere. This can be appreciated with the example of Venezuela where the government tried to instigate the organopnicos model with limited support of citizens, some of whom accuse the government of top-down authoritarianism (Howard 2006).

3.4 The context of Lambeth

Covering an area of roughly 10.5 square miles, Lambeth is the second largest of 13 inner London Boroughs. It has five town centres: Brixton, Clapham and Stockwell, North Lambeth (including Waterloo, Vauxhall, Kennington), Norwood and Streatham, a population of around 272,000 and the highest population density of any inner London borough. It is classified as the fifth most deprived borough. In terms of ethnicity and 62% of the borough is White, 12% Black Caribbean and 12% Black African. 37% Lambeth Council (2010).

Figure three displays notable green Spaces (Parks and allotment sites) within the borough.

Figure 3 Allotment sites and Uban Greenspace within Lambeth. Source EDINA UK Borders dataset (2010) and Lambeth UDP (2007) amended by Benson (2010)

There are already many growing projects operating in Lambeth and images examples of a few of these are depicted in Figure 4

Figure 4 Examples of food growing initiates underway in Lambeth. Taken from Benson (2010)

As a borough with high levels of deprivation, Lambeth could benefit significantly from new cost effective opportunities provided by community gardens, which have been proven to improve local human and social capital and many low income families could potentially benefit from new sources of cheap healthy food. Also with a high level if ethnic diversity in Lambeth community gardens could be asset for strengthening race-relations.

Results and analysis

4.1 Interviews
4.1.1 The respondents

Individuals were chosen based upon their knowledge and their relevance to local community food initiative in Lambeth. Participants were told during interviews that their names would be kept confidential and that only their roles would be referred to. The purpose of this was to allow participants to express views that they might not have felt comfortable being directly attributed to them.

Participants could be broadly divided into two categories. These include those with network level organisational roles and those responsible for garden level organisation.

Network level participants were as follows:

Three members of the Lambeth Council Sustainability department including the head of the sustainability department, and a Green Community Champions Officer. A coordinator of the London Capital Growth Program. A representative from the London Food Alliance, Sustain. Two representatives of Transition Town Brixton including one of the overall coordinators and one of the coordinators of the steering group for food.

Garden level organisers were as follows:

A representative from Brockwell Park Community Greenhouses. A representative for Roots and Shoots, Kennington. A horticultural therapist from Thrive, Battersea Park. An organiser of Slade Gardens Estate, Stockwell.

4.1.2 What role do you think community gardens have in a wider transition of society to sustainability?

4.1.2.1 Framing of responses

People responded to this question in a variety of ways framing their response in accordance with their own personal perspectives and experiences. Subtle differences between words and phrases like transitioning and greener living, model of an ideal world, and conservation highlighted the contrasts in the way people viewed sustainability. Two individuals identified that the role of community gardens was dependent upon the constructs used to define sustainability. One noted that they thought sustainability was a lot to do with locally focused activity and therefore automatically made community gardens an important aspect. One individual from Transition Town Brixton noted resilience, well being, adaptation and mitigation as different ways to approach sustainability but suggested that building community was an important component of all conceptions and that this could occur through garden or many other means.

4.1.2.2 Extent of community gardening impacts

Two people made direct judgements about the extent that community garden might influence wider sustainable development in society, both considering community gardens to be of limited importance to the big picture. One of these respondents considered community gardens as very valuable for small groups doing sustainability but ultimately that small community scale action is not going to achieve what is necessary in light of the need for wider reaching legislation. The other considered their value as illustrative and demonstrative, suggesting that their function was just one example of the kind of change needed in society but not necessarily the change itself. A representative from Sustain noted that it had been already been established that borough-wide self-sufficiency around food was not possible beyond a few vegetables and herbs. Another respondent noted that it was not possible to gauge the relative importance of community gardening in relation to sustainability. A representative from TTB used active language noting the contribution of community gardens to sustainability as conditional and dependent upon the effort of those involved, stating what we actually need is belief and we need to build groups more around transition. The latter phrase raises an interesting point about the degree to which projects

should be explicitly about sustainability in order to effect sustainable development.

4.1.2.3 Importance

Others stated their view that community gardening was Key and extremely important. Though one person said their value was limited because of lack of widespread interest. Another suggested that their value was right there at the front of sustainability issues since everyone eats food. Another stated that they were of unlimited value citing that as involvement increases, the understanding of potential values stemming from community gardening deepens accordingly. Indeed, as discussed earlier, the multifunctional nature of community gardens was given as an important reason for their value by at least two respondents

4.1.2.4 Contrasts between respondents

The answers given by those involved in network organisation tended to provide a broader picture answering the question more directly, while answers provided by garden organisers tended to be more anecdotal and more specific. For instance the Thrive Project at Battersea Park focused on the value horticultural therapy as a resource efficient way of dealing with mental health, while the member of Roots and Shoots emphasised the educational remit of the garden with particular reference to reskilling disadvantaged teenagers.

4.1.2.5 Value as spaces of engagement

Described values could be seen to implicitly point to what was though as relevant for sustainable development, even if sustainability was not specifically referenced. Previously mentioned areas pertaining to skills development, environmental enhancement and improved access to food growing were frequently mentioned by respondents. However, a common theme in responses was the role of gardens as spaces of engagement, an areas also drawn attention to by Schmelzkopf (2002).

Engagement around ideas

The development of understanding through heightened awareness of sustainability played an important part of responses, highlighting the role of gardens engaging people around ideas. A sustainability officer from the council noted that community gardens were a good way for people to engage with broader agendas that might be difficult to communicate in other ways, noting the role of community gardens in helping individuals to understand the way relationships with food affects environmental footprints. A representative from a garden noted the value of informal experiential learning while the Capital Growth representative described community gardening a good way to get people thinking in positive way. This also supported the idea mentioned earlier that gardening reinforces links between well being and sustainability.

Engaging people in wider environmental activity

The ability of gardens to trigger further activity can be seen as another component of their roles as spaces of engagement. People described them as a catalyst stimulating sustainable behaviours and as a stepping stone. A representative from the council noted that their impact on community building was a precursor to environmental engagement while a representative from Transition Town Brixton stated:

If community gardens get people interested in growing they will be more interested in their wider urban green environments.

An interview with a Capital Growth representative noted that once people start growing food they were more likely to think about waste water quantities. The representative from Roots and Shoots noted how their project was also used for PV *photovoltaic+ demonstration days. One of the reasons that community gardens act as catalyst for further activity might stem from the fact that they often operate flexibly and one of the respondents noted that community gardens were a place of experimentation, introducing people to new things.

Engaging with people

The idea of a space of engagement can also be extended into the social domain. Two people

referred to community gardens as hubs of participation for strengthening community relationships. One respondent commented that community gardens necessitate a degree of organisation and sharing. Their ability to involve new individuals was also noted. A sustainability officer at the council noted their ability to get unlikely people involved and this was backed up by one of the TTB representatives who stated that masses of people are interested in growing that are not interested in building resilience for a more sustainable future. One of the gardeners noted the regular positive involvement of new people:

Every week different community members get involved and complement our efforts. At least four people a week say thank you

A sense of community gardens providing some form of unification in society also came from one of the TTB members who made the following statement:

I think they break down difference they get people working shoulder to shoulder doing something lovely and connected

The value of having a space for engagement at all can also be viewed as important from a perspective of social sustainability. The representative from Roots and Shoots noted how the recent focus on food growing demands space and also how having a space was important for developing lobbying powers around sustainability. The representative characterised the value of their project from that perspective.

Our service to the community is keeping the space. Stubborn residents are important. The press and media are no good [for engaging people around local food] without the space.

4.1.3 What realistic potential do you see for future expansion of community gardening activities in Lambeth in terms of the creation of new projects? 4.1.3.1 Potential for new projects

There was general consensus that scope existed for expansion of community gardening activities

across Lambeth. Though one respondent was more conservative saying there was a reasonable potential, both gardeners and those with network level involvement used words like huge (three people used this word), big, absolutely immense and enormous and the only limit is our imagination and theres always room for expansion. People cited different reasons for this. A common reason was land availability. One person noted that there were hundreds of small spaces across the borough which could be grown upon, another noted that there were lots of estates with lots of land, while a member from TTB noted roof terraces as an area that could be further capitalised upon. Current widespread interest was another reason that several people attributed to expansion potential and one stated a big interest in community food with more local groups that offer relevant support. One person noted that the transient nature of Lambeths population as a favourable factor for developing community gardening activities, though this could also potentially be regarded as an impediment. Several people applied conditionality to such statements with three suggesting that that expansion was dependent upon continued support or nurturing from the council. One of the sustainability officers from the council gave a more precise prediction stating there could be up to 100 *community gardens+ next year but added the caveat that only a few of those gardens might reach a higher level of quality beyond just a few people growing things.

Indeed comments made by those involved with gardens suggested that projects took considerable time and resources to establish maturity. However, one of the representatives from TTB noted that there had already been a considerable expansion in activities since 2008 when estate growing was happening in only a few places. The individual then went on to say:

Now nearly half of estates have some form of growing. Its becoming the rule rather than the exception. The turn is already happening.

4.1.3.2 Other forms of expansion

People also talked about the potential to expand in other ways. Gardeners spoke about more that could be done on existing sites. Some mentioned the involvement of new stakeholders such as health professionals. The potential for developing expansion was noted by the Thrive representative who noted how the network of projects had grown much in the previous four years and was likely to continue doing so. Another person spoke about expanding the activities more

specifically into food production referencing a book called Productive Urban Landscapes which speaks of integrating growing activities through green corridors (Viljoen & Bohn 2005).

In addition to considerable enthusiasm, many of those interviewed also took pragmatic stances and referenced factors that would enable and limit community gardening as a whole in Lambeth.

4.1.3.3 Strategic partnerships and organisation formation

A council representative noted that the continuance of organisational partnerships like Capital Growth would be needed to help expansion. The Capital Growth representative noted that outside of the box approaches were needed and cited Metabolicity, a project set up by a London based art and design studio called Loop.pH. The Metabolicity project refers to itself as a unique experimental and participatory design project that explores low cost solutions to integrate both traditional and hi-tech agricultural techniques into the fabric of the built environment, whilst being rooted in an ethical systems thinking (Wingfield 2010). It has a mandate to empower people to grow food in urban spaces and potentially it represents the kind of coherent strategic approach that could lead to significant expansion around community gardening.

A representative from Transition Towns spoke about potential for a proactive organisation with a remit for setting up community gardens and supporting existing ones (through brokering land agreements, dealing with funding and insurance, solving problems) and referenced Bankside Open Spaces which provides a similar role in Southwark. The project has six full time paid staff including a fundraiser.

Three individuals noted that securing legal arrangements with landowners was of great importance and often provided barriers to creating gardens, especially in light of land prices which make development profitable. One individual noted that broad-scale management of parks and gardens could be changed, passing over responsibility to local residents to enable much larger scale food growing, such as through forest gardening. However it was acknowledged that other stakeholder issues could be problematic, and also that such a scheme might fail if residents didn't have adequate access to resources. One person noted that proactive individuals were important for expansion and gave the example of an individual from an established garden that had been able to facilitate three other community gardens through convening meetings, putting people in

touch and securing funding.

Indeed several spoke of the necessity for continued funding and pointed to the fact that immanent cuts could severely reduce the potential for continued gardening activities.

4.1.4 How important is cooperation between gardens when considering the potential for sustainability in Lambeth?

4.1.4.1 How important

There was almost universal agreement of the need for cooperation between garden organisers and those with network level involvements alike, with six people viewing it as very or really important. The representative from Capital Growth characterised the reason in systematic terms, noting that the embodied energy involved in setting up new projects can be reduced through shared learning and commented that there was no point reinventing the wheel. Another noted that there could be economies of scale in gardens working together to pay for common resources such as seeds and tools. A member of Sustain commented that cooperation can help other projects to become sustainable.

One of the gardeners made an interesting point noting that they thought that cooperation was necessary for the survival of the wider food growing movement and important for building political sustainability but that it was not their personal raison dtre. This last point sums up an issue that was raised several times over the undesirability of interdependence as opposed to interrelation. Several noted that interdependencies could create weak points whereby the failure of one project might negatively impact others and that no project should be indispensable. One also made the point that being interdependent for daily management and financial concerns could become very complicated. Emerging from discussion it became aware that a degree of self-sufficiency in combination with cooperation was preferable.

4.1.4.2 Types of cooperation

People referenced different ways of cooperation relevant for sustainability. Diffusion of practice and education was a recurring theme and individuals commonly spoke about sharing inspiration, solutions, knowledge and training. One of the staff members at the council explained that many people did not have a complete mix of skills or resources, explaining that some of the garden organisers had better horticultural prowess while some tended to be better at community engagement. Another stated that environmental best practice could be shared. Sharing in material terms was also mentioned and a member from Sustain noted that gardens could support each other through supply and demand while a member from TTB mentioned how seedlings could be shared between projects.

Specialisation to support wider coordinated efforts was mentioned several times. People referred to specialisation of gardens in terms of growing food crops whereby rotation of land use between gardens could be used to maintain soil fertility. The value of individuals developing knowledge around certain areas, in effect becoming consultants, was also referenced.

Mobile gardening groups were also mentioned as another way that specialisation might occur to help certain sites out at critical times and one of the TTB staff noted that this had happened in the past.

Site specific examples were also given with reference to cooperation and Brockwell Park was noted for its role in supporting new gardens. The spokesperson for Brockwell Park noted that there was potential for further cooperation between Brockwell Park and other gardens. The Roots and Shoots representative suggested that as an organisation concerned with sustainability there was an obligation for Roots and Shoots to be aware of local projects and give advice and support, particularly on how to survive the first five years of starting.

Time specific contexts for cooperation were also given including food exchanges around harvest festival, the organisation of periodic meetings for those involved in gardening where locally relevant themes could be addressed such as growing on heavy clay. An example was given from the past of Seedy Sundays where gardeners could discuss different plant varieties and work to build up local seed networks and seed banks. This was described as having the important benefit

of adapting local varieties to local conditions whilst maintaining seed diversity and fertility.

Organisational contexts were also referenced for facilitating links between gardens. One example provided by a Sustain Representative mentioned Growing Communities; a Hackney based Community Supported Agriculture Project that employs a sustainable business model to link local residents to food grown on local community gardens and nearby farms which supplement produce.

The use of networks was also referenced an important way of link activity between gardens and there was talk of group email communication tools and the Project Dirt and Capital growth websites which both have maps of community growing projects.

An interesting point was made by the Roots and Shoots representative on way that often funding can be seen to necessitate cooperation. It was noted that when funders consider applicants they look for a maximisation of potential which often includes how well integrated the activity of the project is within the wider community

4.1.4.3 Incredible Edible Lambeth

Regarding the potential for cooperation between projects there was again a general opinion that many opportunities existed. A new initiative Incredible Lambeth planned by the Sustainability Department, based on similar examples from around the country, was mentioned several times by the council representatives. The project would draw on a wide reaching overlapping membership and would be orientated towards developing stronger networks of local food growers. As an alliance with an annual subscription it would have greater strength in sourcing funding for gardens and would strengthen food growing hubs such as Myatts Field Greenhouses and Brockwell Park Community Greenhouses, facilitates workshops that would be run on gardens at a regional scale. A special networking person would also be employed as a permanent staff member. Again the issue of whether funding would be forthcoming for this project was highlighted as a potential impediment.

4.1.4.4 Areas for development

Several areas were mentioned as necessary for the successful development cooperation between gardens. Whether through schemes such as Incredible Edible Lambeth or by other means the requirement for facilitators and brokers was highlighted. Indeed, in their social capital research Selman and Parker (1997) it was noted that supernetworker type individuals were of great importance for the success development of a project (Selman & Parker 1997). However, the need for gardeners to take their own initiative was also noted and that those with official networking roles should not be relied upon. The TTB Growers Group has actually created a Growers Guide with the intention of providing individuals with help and information on how to develop projects effectively themselves. The point was made that cooperation also required those involved in community gardens to make their space accessible and not like a private club. Several gave examples where such an issue had undermined projects in the past.

The strengthening of existing communication networks was an issue which continued to come up and one person suggested that rewards incentives schemes could be built into such networks, while another mentioned that websites such as Project Dirt could be developed further to function in more of a focused way for those involved in garden projects, enabling coordinated and decentralised borough wide action.

The need for continual questioning was another emerging theme. One individual stated that identifying cross cutting issues to combine efforts, fundraise on or to push for changes at the Council was very important while another noted that it was important to work out what kinds of links would be the most useful for projects.

4.1.5 What are the main limitations to developing cooperation?

Though one individual stated that imagination was the only limitation the general perception was that there were many barriers to cooperation between gardens that needed to be considered.

4.1.5.1 Willingness to cooperate

A range of reasons were given for the difficulty in getting projects to work together. Two respondents noted that different background or value bases could provide a challenge. Several

commented that projects do not always see the need to cross work while another stated that having gardens make contact with each other was often a challenge. One gardener noted that they werent very linked in to networks, and that their arrangements with other projects were very adhoc. One council representative noted that sustained cooperation was a challenge because often after the initial project set up people tended to become more involved with their own gardening activities. One of the gardeners noted that their project had become more about selling produce than cooperative working. Amongst other things trust issues stemming from fear of security were cited as reasons why the gardens might not be open to cooperate. Inclusivity was also noted as problem and getting mass community involvement was often seen as a difficulty.

4.1.5.2 Managing networks

Network management could be seen as another broad category that would limit cooperation. A TTB representative noted:

Because there is so much scope for cooperation it is overwhelming. We have physical and mental limits on how many projects we can attach to.

Another stated:

We get too cluttered and bogged down with information, links, forums and networks and get bogged down in bureaucracy.

It was also noted that people were reluctant to take on the organisational roles which often led to unbalanced governance structures within the garden.

Taking on organisational networking roles within the garden demands learning challenges and it was mentioned that people were not always prepared to learn new systems and that negotiation amongst participants could be emotionally demanding. One commented that people would not necessarily want to be seeing a million different people. Available time was also a factor mentioned by several people especially when, in addition to a full time job, gardening was considered a recreation rather than as a sustainability priority. There was also a funding component to such concerns. One commented that if youre struggling to survive *financially as

project+ you dont get out that much. Several others noted that a need for paid staff in order to achieve effective organisation from within gardens

As network level organisers, TTB, Capital Growth and Sustain representatives were aware of the logistics of scale issues, stating that for physical cooperation around material resources and food projects needed to be close. Lack of mature projects was also given as a reason why cooperation around food might not be currently effective.

4.1.6 What potential is there for gardens to form wider beneficial relationships with business of both small and large scales?

There was a mixture of opinion on both the potential and desirability of forming links between community gardens and business. A member of TTB stated a need for relationships with businesses and this was understandable considering TTBs emphasis on local economic resilience. A member of one of the gardens noted that they already partnered with business but did not know whether the current economic climate would affect opportunities in the future.

4.1.6.1 Selling food

Many spoke of local the ability of gardens to sell surplus food and plants to local retailers and greengrocers. A member from the councils sustainability department noted a restaurant in Kings Cross called Konstram which sourced all of its produce from within the M25 of London and noted scope for a similar business in London. However it was commented that such collaboration required joined up thinking involving the business from the start of the planning stage, focusing on specific crops which could meet the levels of demand expected. Another council member noted that focussing on herbs could make meeting supply needs easier. Both a member of Sustain and one of the Gardens noted that variable quality levels of produce could make links with some business difficult but that small market trading was an option. Indeed Brixton Farmers Market does sometimes sell produce from local community gardens. However the caveat was given that in for wide-reaching consumer buy in, some negative public perceptions regarding safety and legality of food would need to be addressed.

4.1.6.2 Sponsorship by business

Sponsorship by business was also referenced several times. At the local level it was suggested that local vendors could subsidise items such as tools. At the level of big business it was noted that several gardens were being sponsored and hosting community engagement away days or team building exercises as part of their corporate social responsibility policy. One individual noted that Price Waterhouse Cooper was financially supporting one of the estate gardens in Brixton. There was an air of caution however in relation to involvement of big business in such projects. Two of the respondents noted that communities could sometimes feel used by such involvements and that one-off volunteering days offered limited benefits. The Roots and Shoots representative noted that communication with companies was through intermediaries, making it difficult to engage in serious sustained manner and that if a business group came to a project for an away day it was often difficult to find appropriate Jobs for all those that turned up. There were also ethical concerns voiced. If a garden was organic it may not want to be linked to a business that did not invest in the same values. Also, if a company invested large amounts of finance into a garden it might want more control of decision making than a garden was willing to give. Another point made was that many people get involved in community gardens to escape the trappings of commercial activity.

4.1.6.3 Other links

There was discussion around of gardens linking up with business in other ways. For instance it was suggested that gardens might be able to compost a degree of the organic waste from local businesses while another example was given of a pub in Streatham which served as a drop off point for vegetable produce. The representative from Sustain noted that they were holding events to link local growers with local businesses in order to expand the local food directory. However it was noted that the transient nature of community gardens and the Lambeth population might mean that forging long term deep links with big businesses could be problematic.

Aside from gardens and business linking as separate entities there was also discussion relating to business establishing gardens on their own premises and it was noted that businesses often had redundant roof space. Indeed the Lambeth based waste composting company Veolia has its own garden. It was also commented that gardens could initiate their own business models and again

there was reference to Community Supported Agriculture projects and vegetable box schemes. A representative from TTB noted how food hub sites such as Brockwell Park could be used to do business in seedling agriculture whereby local growers could specify seedlings wanted for the next growing season.

4.1.7 How could local and national government help community gardens in contributing more towards sustainable development?

Responses could be seen to broadly address two main areas, namely policy and activity. As would be expected, those that had the most to comment tended to be those with network level involvement in community food projects.

4.1.7.1 Policy areas

Land use

Land use was a theme that reoccurred in relation to policy requirements. A Sustain representative noted:

There is already lots of reference to food growing and green space but there needs to be more explicit reference in Local Areas Agreements and Regional Spatial Strategies.Also, The London Food Strategy, a London wide plan up to 2020, has reference to growing spaces but needs more explicit reference to use of land for growing

This opinion was backed up by council representatives who noted that the issue was particularly sensitive since Lambeth was the most densely populated borough in London. It was suggested that more flexibility should be built into land-use policy in order to allow community growing projects to take place during the interim between other land-use developments. A TTB representative suggested that a policy which introduced disincentives for the neglect of undeveloped land around estates would also be beneficial.

Planning

Planning was another core policy issue (mentioned by two representatives from the Council and one from Sustain) and it was suggested growing space and composting facilitates should be incorporated into all new builds. A policy mechanism for ensuring that the both intangible and tangible values of community gardening projects are represented in development decisions was also noted. For instance it was also suggested that economic evaluations of mental health programmes could be favour community garden based approaches such as that carried out by Thrive.

Laws and regulations

Respondents were also critical of regulatory burdens prohibitive to garden development. There was talk of the need for policy change that would make it easier for groups to secure land. Simplification of lease mechanisms was one such example. Other mechanisms, such as a Lambeth wide insurance policy or easy an easy to sign up to scheme were also suggested as measures that could make it much easier for gardeners to deal with the legal issues.

Another area mentioned by three respondents was the relaxing of allotment laws in order to enable the selling of food.

4.1.7.2 Activity of Government

Despite some level of comment on the areas of policy that could be revised, many cited the activities and attitudes of local government to be more important than legislation. Two council representatives noted that idea of the Big Society did not require a policy change but an attitudinal change, and that councils had always been fully capable to cooperate with community gardens.

Coming changes in relation to making government smaller were in fact mentioned more than once. A council representative noted that for this reason it was good that many of the projects had developed independently of council support. One of the garden representatives noted an article by Guardian Columnist Polly Toynbee which concluded from an analysis of the funding impacts of the coming cuts that the greatest impact would be upon the voluntary sector (Toynbee 2010).

However, the fact that Lambeth Council remained a Labour council after the last election was suggested as favourable towards the future coordination of gardening activities, especially from the point of view of working with groups such as TTB.

Much of the comment dealt with the level of commitment in terms of time and resources that local governments were prepared to assign to community initiatives. For instance the Capital Growth Representative commented that 11 local authorities had signed up to higher level Capital growth initiatives but were then not following it through with adequate funding management and staffing. It was also noted that talking about land availability was irrelevant without financial support and there were concerns by several that funding for successful projects such as Green Community Champions might not continue. This could be quite damaging for relations between the public and the council. Indeed one of the gardeners noted that before the Community Champions initiative they werent really aware of the wider activity that was being led and supported by the council.

Attitudinal changes around risk were also cited as crucial areas of need. Several commented that local authorities could be overly cautious about allowing food growing projects compared to other low maintenance alternatives. However, it was also noted that careful consideration was needed by councils over legal liability that might arise from issues such as soil contamination. Though, it must be said that most of the projects in Lambeth used raised beds when uncertain about the condition of the soil below. One commented that groups that took up activity on public land would need to accept responsibility for anything that could go wrong.

Another attitudinal issue referenced was that of deliberative engagement with the community when developing policy around community food growing. It was suggested that some policy changes could not be made without community involvement especially in relation to a broader food strategy that might extend beyond growing.

4.1.8 How could local authorities help to facilitate cooperation between community gardens?

4.1.8.1 Facilitation rather than control

In response to a more specific question on the role of Local authorities there was a wide consensus that facilitation meant providing support, help and space (such as using the assembly rooms as a forum), whilst intervening in operations of gardens as little as possible. It was noted that many people would not want the operations of a garden network part of the council itself. One community gardener commented:

They [the Council] could be involved in setting up fora, but do we want that? I would argue for more for federations and local networks to do this with support from the council such as venues, funding and participation

One of the representatives from TTB suggested that any presumption that community gardens have to ask permission and be supported needed to change, giving reference to successful community garden movements in New York, Chicago, Detroit and Manchester occurring completely independent of political authorities. One gardener described that dependence on the council for funding had been problematic in the past when cheques hadnt arrived.

4.1.8.2 Areas of importance

Despite such comments many did refer to areas where council coordinated activity could be of value. This included bringing in borough level expertise through networks and hubs. One noted the benefits of existing activities:

I think Green Community Champions is doing an amazing job by letting everyone know whats going on and connecting people. Not just in gardens, but beyond into other groups and initiatives.

Reference was also given to a current interactive mapping project to database gardens and useful contacts. Green Community Champion officers would hold stalls at Lambeth based events and people would be encouraged to locate their projects on a large map or look for a project which

they could join near where they lived. It was noted that the Lambeth Parks and Gardens department needed to become more interested in such projects for it to be successful. It was also suggested that the council could lead in fostering connections between existing estates so that estates which had gardens could help those that didnt. Another noted that the council could actively support local produce markets and distribution networks.

Other areas included the previously mentioned need for dedicated staff, and it was stated that it was essential that there were qualified personnel able to represent the interests of community growing activities in local governments. A representative from Capital Growth noted that the council could have an import role in providing training opportunities which would help build sustainability into projects during the planning stages. It was suggested that providing training in social enterprise models would mean creating projects that were not dependent upon external funding in the long run. Another person noted the value of sustainable certification training.

It was also suggested that the council could provide support through publicity. One person mentioned the councils monthly publication Lambeth Life as an outlet while another noted events such as the Lambeth in Bloom contest which last year had a productive food category. It was commented that adding a competitive edge could stimulate further food growing activities.

4.2 Questionnaires for community gardeners

4.2.1 Personal information

A total of 20 respondents, 85% female, from 17 gardens completed the questionnaire. Respondents fitted a mix of age ranges with three in the 21-30 category, five in the 31-40 category, eight in the 41-50 category, two in the 51-60 category and two in the 61-70 category. Most respondents were white British (14) though others cited African (2), Finnish, Kittian and Chinese as ethnic backgrounds.

The following gardens were represented in the Research:

Abundance Project, Tulse Hill Estate Agnes Riley Gardens Brockwell Park Community Greenhouses Clifton Mansions Gardening Project Cottington Estate Community Garden, Kennington Elderwood Green and Growing Get Gardening, Kennington Loughborough Estate Community Garden Made of London Moorlands Estate Community Garden Myatts Field Park Greenhouse Project Rosendale Road Allotments Ruskin Park Community Garden Slade Gardens Shakespeare Garden Stockwell resource centre Streatham Communal Garden

4.2.2 Garden Creation

Seven of the gardens were started in 2010, two in 2009, four in 2008, one in 2001 and one in 1998. Of eighteen individuals that responded, 12 stated involvement in garden creation, while six had joined after creation.

4.2.2.1 Reason

Different reasons were cited for creating the gardens and many individuals referred to several. Three cited turning derelict land into productive land. Two cited bringing community together and meeting the need for community growing spaces. There were three mentions of creating a space to improve well being. One was set up specifically as a horticultural therapy project. One was set up as a demonstration of organic food growing methods for the benefit of the public, while

another was developed in order to grow herbs for the surrounding estate. One space was offered up as a result of leafleting from a local programme aimed at helping domestic food growing efforts (Food up Front). Another was an allotment space with the principle purpose of food growing

4.2.2.2 Funding

Of 12 people that answered, diverse of funding sources were mentioned for the creation of gardens. Two stated 02 'Its your community', two stated Capital Growth and two stated the Lambeth Ward Purse. Other funds included The Make a Big Difference Fund, Activate London from the Peabody Trust of The Big Lottery, Lambeth community fund and Urban II Funding from Trees for Cities. One respondent stated the use of fundraising competitions. Two individuals from different gardens mentioned sums of 30k and 20k whilst one and allotment holder paid 32 a year and two others stated that their gardens operated without funding, including one without any expenditure.

4.2.2.3 Resources and guides

Of seven that answered only four stated using external resources or guides to set up the gardens. Two mentioned internet research, while one mentioned sourcing leftover material from The Chelsea Flower Show. Respondents who did not access external funding referred to the use of reclaimed scaffolds, wood, tyres, compost made of garden waste, donated seeds, volunteers time and expertise.

4.2.2.4 Involvement in other gardens

Six individuals stated involvement in the creation of other community gardens (all of whom had been involved in the creation of the gardens they were answering questionnaires for). One of these had been involved in the creation of three other gardens while two people had taken part in the development of two others.

4.2.3 Personal activity

4.2.3.1 Roles within garden

People cited a variety of roles which they saw themselves as fulfilling within their gardens reflecting varying degrees of functional differentiation. Seven of the respondents cited multiple perceived roles within their gardens such as development/education officer, coordinator and project manager. Eight individuals described roles in coordination and organising, five directly described roles in food growing though it is likely that the majority of respondents took part in such activity. Two stated roles in design, four in maintenance and one in administration. Two stated roles in providing advice or practical assistance for other gardeners while two stated research roles within the gardens. For instance one individual was using the garden to learn about food growing in order to develop knowledge to provide help for domestic gardeners through Garden Organic's Master Gardener program. One individual stated a role as a horticultural therapist while another saw themselves simply as an occasional visitor.

4.2.3.2 Time spent in gardens

Of seventeen people that answered 11 people stated visiting their gardens several times per week, five people once a week and two less than once a week. People generally lived within a close walking distance to their gardens with the mean time stated to walk from their home as 7.6 minutes (n=20) with the maximum time stated being 40 minutes and the minimum time being one minute. The mean time per week spent in gardens was 4.39 hours with three people stating times of 10 hours or over (the maximum being 14), three people stating time spent within the range of 59 hours and 13 people stating time within the 1-5 hour range.

4.2.3.3 Visiting other gardens

Other than the principle garden which respondents answered for, 18 individuals named 14 other gardens which they had visited. Some of these reoccurred in responses. For instance Brockwell Park Community Greenhouses was noted five times; Myatts Field Park Greenhouses was noted four times, Roots and Shoots three times, Bleinham garden edible estates and the Abundance

Project were both mentioned twice. Other gardens mentioned once included Cottington, Stockwell Green, Dorset Road, Chiswick House, Tabard, Harleyford Road, Norwood Park and Loughborough Junction. However three people cited 'many' rather than naming gardens suggesting that considerably more gardens than were stated had been visited.

Of thirteen responses only four people stated regularly visiting other gardens of which Brockwell Park Community Greenhouses were mentioned twice.

Fourteen respondents stated having their own gardens while another stated having balcony space dedicated to growing.

4.2.4 Value and Purpose

4.2.4.1 Reasons for gardening

A range of reasons were given were given for peoples principle involvement in community gardening. Four referred to growing plants, four people spoke in practical terms referring to skills sharing, skills development, reduced reliance on oil and role as therapist. The answers of six referred to the benefits of community either as developing it or a feeling a part of it. Referenced community benefits included was given to creating a safe space for children and a space for sharing and education. Four gave more emotionally based reasons referring to satisfaction, reduced stress and enjoyment (mentioned twice). Two responses were more abstract. One person quoted Ghandi's Be the change you want to see while another stated that their main reason was to better the quality of my life and the life of my fellow human beings (which in turn, I hope benefits all beings).

4.2.4.2 The best thing about community gardening

On being asked what people thought was the best thing about their gardens 12 of the 20 responses contained components related to community and friendship. Three of the responses noted the ability of gardens to inspire the wider community and one mentioned the benefits of bonding with their son. Other responses included eating a meal which I have grown entirely

myself, It's an experiment you dont get many chances in life to make a mistake where it doesn't really matter and we've 45 varieties of tomatoes.

4.2.4.3 Specialist areas

Of 15 individuals who responded, nine stated their gardens having a specialism. These included vegetable growing, plant knowledge, drought tolerance, qualified gardeners and garden designers, exotic unusual heritage food, growing foodstuffs related to Afrocaribbean farming, recycling and using local waste materials as soil.

4.2.4.4 Garden Success

On being asked how successful people thought their garden was the mean response was 7.58 out of 10.

4.2.5 Personal and community well being

Three questions were asked regarding personal and community well being each containing the option to answer on a scale of -5 to 5. Regarding the effect of community gardening on personal well-being the mean response was 3.75. A range of reasons were given for such responses. Of the reasons given for positive impacts on well being, socialising was mentioned seven times, sense of achievement and purpose was mentioned five times, beauty was metioned three times and physical activity was mentioned twice. One person also mentioned gaining employment through the activity of community gardening and. One mentioned an improved sense of well being due to the fact that community gardening enabled them to garden in a way which wouldn't have been otherwise possible due to their medical conditions. Two people stated reasons linked to the garden that detracted from well being including organisational problems and a burden of perceived learning requirements.

The mean perceived impact of gardens creating a sense of community spirit in the wider neighbourhood was a positive (3.84 on a -5 to 5 scale). With -5 meaning decreased value and 5 meaning increased value, the mean response for the way community gardens affected the way

individuals valued their own neighbourhood was 4.15

4.2.6 Connecting with people

4.2.6.1 Number of people met through community gardening

On average each individual claimed to have met roughly 30 people through their own garden. The highest numbers were recorded at Brockwell Park Community greenhouses (80 people met) and Made of London where 100 people were said to have been met. On average people guessed to have met 13 other people through other community gardens, though two people claimed not to have met people from other gardens. On average individuals reported their gardens to have been visited by 30 volunteers with an average of 40% of those being regular participants, though the numbers and percentages varied widely between gardens. Three gardens stated 100% of attendees being regular participant whereas three gardens stated 5% or lower.

4.2.6.2 Involving others

Sixteen individuals out of 20 stated that they actively tried to get more people involved in their gardens while only one out of twenty said that they would not like to see any more involved in their garden (due to the fact that there was no more capacity) .

On being asked about the best ways to get more people involved in community gardening five people responded. Three cited word of mouth as being the most important, two of those mentioning also the benefit of running sample sessions or having the gardens open at set times per week. Another spoke of the virtues of open days.

4.2.6.3 Developing friendships

Out of twenty responses 16 stated that they found it easier to develop lasting friendships through community gardening compared to other social activities (one respondent added the words much much), while the other four responses stated that it was about the same.

4.2.6.4 Starting new projects with gardeners

On being asked how likely (on a 1-10 scale) it was that people would use those they knew from community gardens if they were to start another environment related project, the mean response was 6.87. One stated that they had in fact already started another project using people they knew from their garden.

4.2.7 Connecting with the environment

4.2.7.1 Sustainability values affecting gardening

On average people gave a score of 8.68 out of 10 when asked about the impact of environmental/sustainability issues on their approach to community gardening. People noted a variety of measures to improve wildlife within their gardens. Eight individuals referred to their gardens as organic or chemical free. Other measures included ponds and water features (mentioned five times), assigned wild areas (mentioned seven times). Five people referred to planting decisions (three mixed planting, one growing nettles, one using green manure). Three gardeners referred to methods relevant for invertebrates and pollinators including reference to a 'bug hotel' (a multi-level structure containing habitats suited to invertebrates) and bee hives (two respondents). One garden actually had a biodiversity survey planned. Two individuals viewed gardens as wildlife improving measures in themselves.

4.2.7.2 Community gardens and local awareness of sustainability

When asked how much people thought their gardens raised local awareness of environmental or sustainability issues the mean response was relatively low at 5.3 out of 10, where 0 represented no raised awareness and 10 represented greatly raised awareness. One respondent added I think it raises some awareness simply through its existence visitors (including school groups) see where food comes from, can explore the wildlife and plants on site, enjoy nature, etc. However we would like to do more specific and focused awareness-raising in the future.

4.2.7.3 Comparisons with other projects

When asked how community gardening fared compared to other activities in developing a personal appreciation of sustainability issues, eight people thought it to be more important than other projects they had done, seven people thought it to be no more or no less important, while one thought it was less important. Two people did not respond. Reasons given for the garden improving personal appreciation of sustainability issues included, I spend most of my time there, something I can do to reduce carbon for my children and my grandchildren, Its the only environmental project I'm involved in, volunteers need to learn how to conserve resources, reduce waste and plan for the future. One respondent noted:

Sustainable Development is my job as well, however by doing it through gardening, you appreciate everybody's motives, drivers, needs differ and even though we all know the issues of environmental sustainability it can be very challenging to make a positive action.

Reasons given for gardening being no more or no less important than other projects for developing appreciation of sustainability included I feel my personal appreciation of environmental and sustainability issues developed from a young age and that many different aspects of my life continue to shape It and I'm studying for an MSc in environmental decision making. The response which stated community gardening as being less important for appreciating sustainability gave the reason of applying knowledge already gained.

On being asked what other environmental projects other people were involved in of the 18 that responded six people cited none. Seven people reported being a part of Transition Towns groups, six of those being TTB and the other being Transition Thames. Two people noted being Green Party members and two people mentioned Project Dirt. Other projects included Wild London, Grass Routes, Sustainable Streatham and Invisible Food. One person noted lobbying and campaigning on sustainability issues.

Ten people recorded being a part of environmental networks with eight noting Project Dirt and two noting London Low Carbon Communities. Others mentioned included the Lambeth council's Green Community Champions, The onion shed, Herne hill green drinks and Facebook feeds.

4.2.8 Connecting with food

4.2.8.1 Sharing food

Of 16 that responded nine individuals reported that food grown collectively and was shared at their gardens, while five stated that individuals would grow food on their own allocated areas of the garden. One garden stated that a mix of both occurred while some food was also sold to visitors.

4.2.8.2 Level of food production

On a scale where 10 meant all fruit, vegetable and salad needs were met and where 0 meant no food needs were met; the mean response was 2.41 for peoples perceived self-sufficiency.

Twelve out of 18 people stated that more food could be grown on site while 13 out of 17 people stated that they would want to see more food grown on site. One of the respondents of Brockwell Park community Greenhouses said that they were hoping to move away from food sales to concentrate on supplying young plants to community groups and develop more on site training. 4.2.8.3 Selling and distributing food

Of 17 responses 12 people stated that food was sold on their site. One individual stated using the Brixton Pound (a new local currency) on their site while eight of 16 individuals stated that they would consider using the Brixton Pound at their site in the future.

Of 17 individuals four stated that they distributed food beyond their garden and in response to another question six stated interest in distributing produce through a vegetable box scheme for community gardens. 4.2.8.4 Food growing methods

One respondent stated employing permaculture (an ecologically integrated approach) in their

gardening methods.

Nine of 16 individuals reported having gone to workshops or courses related to food tuition and of those two cited Food up Front days. Of 19 responses the mean perception of personal growing ability was 5.83 out of 10 where 10 represented very advanced and 0 represented beginner.

4.2.9 Garden level functioning

4.2.9.1 Making decisions

In seven of the gardens decisions were made through a committee (possibly due to requirements to form a committees before making a funding applications), three stated that most decisions were made through the direction of leader, one gardener stated consensus decision making and another that decisions were made individually without the need for consultation. Three stated mixtures of the previous three options with one from Brockwell Community Greenhouses citing that horticultural decisions were made through a leader while planning and development decisions went through committee.

4.2.9.2 Coordinating with other gardens

Perceived coordination with other gardens was low with a mean score of 2.38 out of 10 where 0 meant no coordination and where 10 meant extensive coordination. Three respondents noted coordination with two other gardens while one noted coordination with three other gardens. One person stated that people from other gardens turned up regularly and one person noted involvement with local school projects

When asked about the nature of coordination three individuals mentioned seed swaps between gardens. Two individuals mentioned holding events at their gardens. Two mentioned coordination related to seedlings, plants or produce. Two mentioned advising or educating individuals from other gardens and another cited aiding in the development of a new garden. One mentioned skill sharing, another information sharing and another person referred to the Project Dirt website as a

means of communication.

4.2.9.3 Online networks and partnership with organisations

Of nine responses eight individuals stated that their gardens were linked to online networks. Six individuals stated having a website and of 12 responses, nine individuals stated that their garden was partnered with other organisations. Organisations included the immediately local such as St. Georges Residents Association, Stockwell Resource centre, The Myatts Field Park Project Group, Sustainable Streatham, Transition Towns Brixton, ABC Brixton and the wider reaching Aardvark, Food up Front,, BPCG, Wildcaper, PELI,, Lambeth Green Community Champions and Groundworks.

4.2.10 Sharing skills, knowledge and expertise

Fifteen respondents out of 16 stated personal interests in developing coordination between gardens to share resources for community supported agriculture. Fourteen people demonstrated an interest to share resources through online networks and of those 14, 12 stated an interest in sharing seeds, 10 in sharing tools, 13 in sharing knowledge and expertise and 12 in sharing labour at critical times.

Eleven respondents described a willingness to share expertise between gardens. This included advice on setting up a garden, design, gardening with children, fundraising, ideas, knowledge of planting and maintenance, knowledge of wild food and ideas and experience in how to coordinate volunteers.

Fourteen respondents demonstrated a willingness to contribute to the development of resources that would allow community gardens to be used for furthering local understanding around environment and sustainability issues and 15 respondents showed an interest in facilitating a range of projects at their gardens. Of these respondents 11 stated an interest in education for schools, ten in workshops and skills development, ten in urban ecology projects, seven in music events and six in other recreational activities. One noted an interest in cooking unusual food at their garden.

4.2.11 Challenges and opportunities

4.2.11.1 Current difficulties

Common problems encountered by individuals and gardens included lack of funding (seven responses), lack of volunteers (six responses), security and vandalism (three responses), access to water (three responses) and lack of leadership or coordination (three responses). Other problems mentioned included inertia, lack of help from landowner, lack of help from the council and problematic relations between volunteers.

4.2.11.2 Needs of gardeners

When asked about current the needs of the gardens five individuals stated funding, three leadership and coordination, three knowledge and skills, two waters access, two stated volunteers and two stated a need for more cross-working with other gardens.

4.2.11.3 Future issues

When asked about the future issues facing gardens responses included leadership, extending space and creating a roof garden, working better with housing trust, having the estate demolished, funding (two responses), maintenance (three responses), keeping the garden organised, health and safety, moving to a more professional setup whilst keeping the garden informal.

4.2.11.4 Improving the value of the gardens

Individuals listed a range of things that could be done in order to improve the value of their gardens. These included making the garden appealing through planting so that the public would linger more, developing the garden like a business, improving public participation, improving the variety of plants, adding a wildlife trail, improved infrastructure such as cold frames, soil improvement, practicing permaculture, introducing wildflower meadows, adding fruit trees and keeping bees. One respondent wrote better labelling and interpretation on site, training and skills

events, more work with schools and increased participation from local residents. 4.2.11.5 Starting new community gardens

When asked if interested in starting up a new community garden two respondents demonstrated an interest. Many stated that they were too busy though one person said that they were always encouraging and supporting new community gardens.

Discussion and Conclusions

5.1 Commenting on the quality of data

5.1.1 The interview

Interview participants demonstrated much accumulated knowledge on the subject of community gardens and were able to articulate well reasoned opinions, reference numerous helpful examples and make considered suggestions about future directions. Some differences of opinion were highlighted by those that contributed, helping to identify complexities around the subject areas, such as the nature of involvement of political authorities, or the extent to which community gardens should be invested in as a mechanism for sustainable development. However, it could be said that the participants shared many broad views on the need for community gardens and the ways in which they could be harnessed. Though this could be considered a strength in terms of illuminating a sense of shared vision, it could also be criticised. It may be said that participants represented too narrow a section of society to fully represent the issues covered. For instance there may be those who would view the infrastructural architecture of modern settlements, as so inherently unsustainable, that focussing upon green pockets within them could only be seen as a distraction from larger issues. Conversely, there may be those who would view the local community food movements as an inefficient use of resources and that scientific and technological approaches are more relevant for societal transition. Such opinions are not represented, though that is not necessarily detrimental to the research. The project set out to examine primarily, cooperative potentials and so having contributions from those most likely to collaborate is very

important.

5.1.2 The questionnaire

With over 60 recorded community gardens spaces within Lambeth and perhaps many more unrecorded, a sample of 20 people from 17 gardens cannot be considered representative of all Lambeth community gardeners and so it is not reasonable to generalise any conclusions made. In addition, for statistically significant patterns between factors of response to be uncovered, there would need to be at least five times the responses recorded response level and a much more randomised sampling strategy. There was an inherent bias to gather data from those most willing and those most able to respond. Most people who responded appeared to be reasonably well connected proactive individuals often with some degree of involvement in coordination. However this does not mean that the data is of no use. The answers constituted real opinions from real people and many of the answers were of great factual relevance in sketching the functioning of community garden networks in Lambeth. The fact that individuals who completed the questionnaire often had core roles within their gardens served to maximise the level of understanding that could be gained from the small sample size. The main thing when interpreting this data is to realise that within the countless informal relations between people, organisations and gardens throughout the borough, the questionnaires offered but a small window of insight. Another issue is that some of the questions could be seen as leading. For instance when being asked about garden success or the impact of environmental issues on involvement, it could be construed that people would want to answer in a way they felt they should overplaying benefits or their actual care for such areas.

5.2 What ways and to what extent are Lambeth community gardens creating and facilitating value relevant for sustainable development?

The issues regarding the different way in which both sustainable development and value relevant for it can be conceptualised need to be kept in mind here. Indeed the relevance of the value gardens provide is dependent upon the style of sustainable development in question. Both interview and questionnaire respondents used different kinds of language when talking about their

gardens value highlighting different issues of importance. However there was concordance between both the interviews and the questionnaires in the view that community gardens were of great significance for local sustainability. Therefore the diversity of motives, understandings and values can be seen as an important part of creating resilience in local approaches, which indeed the transition movement discourse often refers to.

Questionnaire respondents clearly viewed their gardens as creating many social and environmental benefits, and those involved in garden creation saw sustainable development as an important reason for initiation. They viewed their approach as strongly influenced by sustainable development and they noted their appreciation and understanding of sustainable development to be enhanced by their gardens. Indeed, many noted that the influence of community gardens was greater than other projects they were involved with and for some it was the only involvement that they had with other people around environmental issues. It would appear though that there were some limitations. Though people cited positive values in their wider neighbourhood in terms of community spirit, it would appear that people thought gardens were currently limited in raising awareness of environmental and sustainability issues in their wider neighbourhood. This may have been because of a lack of inclusivity in projects or because a lack of capability or desire for people to proselytise sustainable development. It must be noted that though people valued sustainable development in their approach it was not necessarily, apart from in a couple instances (such as the Made of London Project), a conscious aim or objective. It is likely that people would be cautious to get overly earnest around their neighbourhoods, preferring to influence others in more subtle ways such as leading through example. Considering sensitive strategies for community gardens to consciously promote sustainability in their wider neighbourhood is an area that could be addressed further in the future.

Despite this, the fact that community gardens were drawing people together who cared about sustainability enough to act upon it in any way at all, must be seen as important and links to the value of community gardens as flexible spaces of engagement and fora, a reoccurring theme that appeared in numerous contexts throughout the interviews. Because it was frequently mentioned that community gardens also drew in unlikely people, the potential for facilitating greater awareness of issues such as climate change and environmental sustainability must be appreciated, especially considering that attitudes are likely to be positively reinforced by the recorded well being benefits, and generally considered benefits around developing lasting friendships, which

were also recorded in the questionnaires. In terms of value, probably the single most dominant theme in the questionnaire responses was that of community building, which represents the organisational dimension, that Hanckock (2001) describes as necessary to effectively bind together and develop environmental, social, cultural and economic elements of sustainability.

In terms of addressing the extent that Lambeth community gardens are creating and facilitating sustainable development there are several important points that need to be made. Firstly classifying the significance and potential of community gardens too rigorously at this time of heightened interest in Lambeth could be unhelpful, if it generated unnecessary demarcations. Demarcations such as national government sustainable development targets if followed in blindly could limit and distort the potential of value that community gardens might offer. On a borough wide scale it is fair to say that community gardens currently only represent a small impact upon wider sustainability. However for the small pockets of people they do involve, their value can be said to be of a high quality. Quality of value provided is of great importance needs to be kept consciously in mind for the long term success and development of community gardening. New people are likely to be more attracted to community gardening and local sustainability initiatives if the projects in operation are attractive and well organised. Therefore focussing on helping existing projects should be as much of a priority for the council and groups like TTB, as facilitating new gardens. If existing projects mature into dynamic well functioning units then inherent tendencies for diffusion of activity and further experimentation will be expressed, leading naturally to the creation of new projects. This can be clearly demonstrated by the enabling value of mature Lambeth projects such as Brockwell Park Community Greenhouses, Myatts Field Community Greenhouses and Roots and Shoots.

Perhaps rather than asking to what extent they are currently providing value, a better question might be to ask what can be done strengthen and grow the future contribution of community gardens to society.

5.3 What is the relevance of cooperative interactions between community gardens and other forms of organisation in delivering sustainable development?

The outcomes of the interview and the questionnaires can be seen as broadly complementary in answering the above question. The interviews provided diverse opinions of theoretical possibilities and strategic issues related to using community gardens cooperatively at a broad borough level, while the questionnaire presented an insight to the actuality of what people were capable of and prepared to do.

It was clear that multiple levels of cooperation had already played and essential part in developing the current landscape of community gardens in Lambeth. People initiating gardens harnessed the presence of existing projects and organisation in terms of knowledge, finance and peoplepower though were not necessarily dependent upon them. Several gardens such as Ruskin Park and Cottington Garden used online email networks and sites like Project Dirt both extensively to communicate information about meetings, needs and other locally relevant events with both members of their own gardens and those of other gardens. Support and guidance from groups like TTB and initiatives like Green Community Champion, were clearly proving to be invaluable, helping people tap into resources and required funding.

Though some gardens were more of a closed community, others were very proactive in terms of involving other stakeholders such as schools and local business. For instance Myatts Field Community greenhouse and several other projects around the Vassell Ward supplied produce to a local park caf. Gardens with numerous links were not necessarily any better than ones with fewer; though it would be easy to see how great strength could be built through developing interconnectedness. An important point to note was that though encouraging and enabling cooperative relationships could be seen as beneficial, putting undue pressure on gardens was undesirable. One issue that might need to be addressed in the future is the disparity between those involved at a network level who may favour extensive cooperation and those involved at a garden level who may see it as much less important.

Currently cooperation between gardens is not the most relevant factor for their contribution to sustainable development. Many questionnaire respondents gave low scores on a one to ten scale for the amount of cooperation that occurred between them and other gardens. In the interviews

many reasons, such as network management issues, distance from other gardens and lack of intention provided a possible explanation for why this was. Cooperation between sites around food was also very limited and there was not much evidence found of resource sharing relationships such as tools and seed swaps. Though, it is of course possible that many informal cooperative arrangements existed and were not picked up by the research.

However, it is likely that as gardens, local groups like TTB and council policies, evolve together the significance of cooperation between them will increase, especially in the light of forecasted international resource shortages and immanent funding cuts. Cooperation with business or the development of social enterprise models could become more of a necessity for future survival of projects for instance.

The literature review identified the wider importance of structuring connectivity within wider systems in order to achieve sustainable development. Garden sites could be seen as important hubs of activity within cities, calibrating social connectivity in accordance with environmental values, both supporting and enabling mutually beneficial relationships between numerous groups. The relevance of cooperation for community gardening in Lambeth could be greatly important if the trajectory of development encouraged outward looking approaches.

5.4 What realistic potential might there be for developing further cooperative activity around Lambeth community garden projects.

The interviews and the questionnaires alike highlighted considerable potential for developing the cooperative community gardening projects.

There was a clear willingness by the majority of those taking part in questionnaire at gardens to get more value out of their garden projects. People were interested in hosting a whole range of workshops activities and events at their sites. Though it could be construed that respondents were ticking boxes they felt obliged to, the interest displayed should not be taken for granted and it is well worth people formulating borough wide programs to host a range of events and activities at community gardens. It was interesting that many stated an interest to use local currencies at their

garden. The Brixton Pound is currently building momentum and providing widespread interest throughout the borough. There is currently scoping research taking place between those behind the Brixton Pound and the New Economics Foundation to bring in a borough wide electronic currency into circulation. If gardens became one of the first places to use it, there would be a novel way of forming links between gardens and wider community which would also provide effective for keeping financial capital in the local area.

Interest was also expressed by gardeners in terms of starting other environmental projects. The garden at Ruskin Park was in fact born out of a residents climate change awareness groups. If links were formed between gardens and these kinds of initiatives then there would be further scope for developing more integrated local sustainability projects. In addition forming a connection between gardens and climate change groups could be effective for sustaining momentum throughout the year, especially in the winter where turnout to gardens might be less.

A key issue in developing integrity between networks of gardens is getting more people into the gardens. With more regular volunteers gardens would have more to contribute to wider systems. There are many ways of achieving this. One way might be to make links with initiatives like Garden Organics Master Gardener programme. Volunteers of the scheme provide subscribed households with growing expertise throughout the year. There is scope for them using community gardens in order to aid this. As well as getting more people along to gardens it would also deepen local residential ties and potentially get more people interested in starting new gardens. Community Supported Agriculture schemes could also function in a similar way, linking gardens residents and nearby farms. There are already efforts in Lambeth to get one such vegetable box scheme up and running in Herne Hill.

Another salient issue which emerged in the development of cooperation between gardens was issue of distance and fragmentation. If more community gardens were developed closer together then there would be more potential for developing strategic alliances especially around resources. If the council or any other body created funding streams especially for strategic coordination projects then it would be easy to see how more resilient interconnected projects could emerge

The council could do many things to increase the success of community gardening in Lambeth. Already established is the contribution which they could make through a food strategy and

investment into food hubs event and permanent coordination staff on the incredible edible Lambeth programme.

The council could also provide funding for greater training and educational opportunities which used. Funding for training in IT skills could help people coordinate the functioning of their gardens more effectively while funding for some part time staff at many of the gardens would enable people to contribute beyond basic maintenance level functions within their gardens.

However, with the future budget cuts the relationship with the council is likely to change. The council could potentially move from service provider towards a role as a cooperative partner. If vision orientated individuals from community gardens can have input at open space meeting between multiple stakeholders over the provision of services it is conceivable how other cooperative links between gardens could be developed.

The TTB food group has already recognised the impact which it can have as a strategic partner and has devised the following initiatives (TTB 2010): Composting Posse: looking at the obstacles, legal issues, stakeholders and potential options for composting more food, leaves and green waste in Brixton Food Hub: working with stakeholders to examine the options for local food supply and methods of distribution Growing Pack: Collating knowledge on local food growing projects to create a resource pack for new community projects Cookers & Eaters: Carrying out regular local and seasonal food cooking and eating in houses or on the streets and filming it to post on the web with recipes Food Map: Designing a survey for local food suppliers (retail, wholesale, restaurants etc) to determine their sourcing policies and create a local food directory Green Map: Working on ways to identify potential growing spaces around Brixton and mapping them with photos to grow our vision

Reskilling &Informing: Working on a series of diverse events (talks, films, workshops and happenings) to inform and engage people on bigger food issues and give them new skills Local Policy: Carrying forward the Brixton-wide food agenda and creating relationships with the Council to smooth the path to the future

Recommendations

In taking forward the findings and the issues discussed there are several key recommendations that can be made at garden, organisational and local authority level.

6.1 Recommendations for individuals and community groups on how they could use their garden cooperatively in the transition to a sustainable society.

Build an ethos of transition and sustainability into the purpose of the Garden and devise workshops, training programmes and events at the garden which could help to express such a message sensitively into the wider community.

Consider sustainability in the long term by working out the character of the garden and by building on specific strengths. Consider how the garden could be a valuable asset to the wider community, perhaps through specialism.

Take an outward looking approach to the functioning of the garden and look to build effective relations between local gardens and organisations. Perhaps advertise other local gardens on site so that visitors can find out where other local initiatives are occurring.

Engage with local council meetings in order to get the perspectives of community gardens heard. Consider what scope and interest there would be for initiating residential groups around environmental issues and climate change. Consider how to provide advice and help to residential food growing through activities at the garden. Use online networks such as Project Dirt to advertise the garden and link into other events and initiatives.

6.2 Recommendations for businesses, organisations and other initiatives linked to community gardens in how they could work with community garden projects in order to aid in efforts towards sustainability.
Local businesses and organisations should become acquainted with local community gardens, try to understand the contexts around which they are constructed and look for ways of developing mutually supporting relationships with them. For instance it might be possible for an organisation to contribute to training resources that would help gardens to build their own social enterprise models. Local businesses should consider the way they might start their own growing projects using any available space. Organisations such as TTB could develop a mobile programme which would encourage gardening at multiple sites. Organisations such as TTB could develop a mobile participative programme explicitly addressing sustainability and transition issues helping to develop a more conscious understanding amongst the dispersed membership. Online networks such as Project Dirt should consider the ways in which they might make web pages for community gardens more area specific and more interactive to enable the development of meaningful interrelations.

6.3 Recommendations for policy makers and local government on what can be done to facilitate community garden activity that would contribute to sustainable development objectives.

Provide support and funding for the maintenance and development of community garden initiatives, particularly in strategic ways which could develop or incentivise cooperation. Create a permanent post for the coordination of garden activities. Look to facilitate a self sufficient organisation which could manage the needs of community gardens. Lobby for the change of allotment Laws to make food selling legal.

Make more explicit reference to land use and planning to favour community growing initiatives within Sustainable Communities Strategies and Local Area Agreements.

References

Adams, W.M. (2006). "The Future of Sustainability: Re-thinking Environment and Development in the Twenty-first Century." Report of the IUCN Renowned Thinkers Meeting, 2931 January 2006. Aguirre, M.S., (2002) Sustainable development: why the focus on population? International Journal of Social Economics, 29 (12): 923 945 Alaimo, K., Reisch, T. M., Ober, A.J. (2010), Community gardening, neighborhood meetings, and social capital. Journal of Community Psychology 38(4): 497-514, Armstrong, D. (2000) A survey of community gardens in upstate New York: implications for health promotion and community development. Health and Place, 6: 319327. Austin, M. E. and Kaplan, R. (2003) Identity, Involvement, and Expertise in the Inner City: Some Benefits of Tree-Planting Projects. In Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature, ed. Clayton, S and Opotow, S., 205-225. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Baker L. E. (2004) Tending Cultural Landscapes and Food Citizenship in Toronto's Community Gardens, Geographical review, 94(3):305-325 Berkes, F. and Folke, C. (1992) A systems perspective on the interrelations between natural, human-made and cultural capital Ecological Economics, 5: 1, 1-8 Benson, C. (2010) Integrating food growing into the urban environment: A case study of the London Borough of Lambeth.Theses for MSc in Spatial Planning. Oxford Brookes University Biel, R. (2006) The Interplay Between Social and Environmental Degradation in the Development of the international political economy, Journal of world-systems research, 12: 109-147 Burns, A (1999) Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press. [Online] http://home.earthlink.net/~edreforum/id3.html [Acessed1/9/2010] Cabinet Office (2008) Food an analysis of the issues. Revision D, August 2008. The Strategy Unit. [Online]Available at: www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/asset/food/food_analysis.pdf. [Accessed 20/9/2010] Campanioni, N. (1996). El Huerto Intensivo en la Agricultura Urbana de Cuba, in Seminario Taller Regional La Agricultura Urbana y el Desarrollo Rural Sostenible (pp. 3948),

Castelln, S.R. (2003),La Agricultura Urbana y la Produccin de Alimentos: la Experiencia de Cuba, Cuba Siglo 21(30),85, Accessed at at:www.nodo50.org/cubasigloXXI/economia2.htm. Chaplowe, S. G.(1996) Havana's Popular Gardens: Sustainable Urban AgricultureReprinted with permission, from the WSAA Newsletter, A Publication of The World Sustainable agriculture assoiciations, 5, 22 Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental Identity: A Conceptual and an Operational Definition. In Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature, ed. Clayton S. and Opotow, S. 45-65. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Clayton, Susan, and Susan Opotow, ed. 2003. Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. DEFRA(2005)Securing the future delivering UK sustainable development strategy, London: The Stationary Office Dickinson, J., Duma, S., Paulsen, H., Rilveria, L., Twiss, J. and Weinman, T. (2003) Community gardens: lessons learned from California healthy cities and communities. American Journal of Public Health, 93: 14351438. Doyle, R. and Krasny, M. E. (2003) Participatory ruralappraisal as an approach to environmental education in urban community gardens. Environmental Education Research, 9: 91115. Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K. (2002) Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2): 130-141. Hopkins, R. (2008) The Transition Handbook: From Oil Dependency to Local Resilience. Totnes, Green Book Feenstra, G.W. (2009) Local food systems and sustainable communities, Journal of American Alternative Agriculture Ferris, J., Norman, C. & Sempik J. (2002) People, Land and Sustainability: Community Gardens and the Social Dimension of Sustainable Development Journal for social policy and administration 35, (5) 559-588 Flora, C. B. and Gillespie, A. H. (2009) 'Making Healthy Choices to Reduce Childhood Obesity: Community Capitals and Food and Fitness', Community Development, 40 (2): 114 - 122 Francis, M., Lindsey, P., Rice, J.S., (1994). The Healing Dimensions of People and Plant Relations: Proceedings of a Research Symposium. Center for Design Research, Department of Environmental Design, UC Davis, CA. Fusco, D. (2001) Creating relevant science through urban planning and gardening. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 860877. Gallopn, G. (2003) A systems approach to sustainability and sustainable development

Sustainability Assessment in Latin America and the Caribbean United Nations Publication Santiago de Chile Gottelieb, R. and Fisher, A. (1996) First feed the face: Environmental justice and community food security. Antipode, 28(2): 193-203 Glover, T.D., Shinew, K.J., Parry, D.C. (2005) Association, Sociability, and Civic Culture: The Democratic Effect of Community Gardening, Leisure Sciences, 27(1), 75 92 Hancock, T. (1993) Health, human development and the community ecosystem: three ecological models, Health Promotion International, 8(1) Hancock, T. (2001) People partnerships and human progress: building community capital, Health promotional international 16(3) Horne & Shirley (2009) Co-production in public services: a new partnership with citizens. London: Cabinet Office. Howard, A. (2006). "How Green Is That Garden?". E/The Environmental Magazine (Earth Action Network, Inc.) 17: 18-20. http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3250. Islington Council (2009) Food: a strategy for Islington Making healthy and sustainable food accessible to all [Online] Available at: http://www.islington.gov.uk/DownloadableDocuments/Environment/Pdf/Sustainability/10_02_09 _Islington_Food_Strategy_WEB.pdf [Accessed on 20/9/2010] ICLEI (1995) European Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide (Brussels, European Sustainable Cities and Towns Campaign). Irvine S, Johnson, L. and Peters K. (1999) Community Gardens and sustainable land use planning : a case study of the Alex Wilson community garden, Local Environment, 4(1): 34-45 Israel, B., Schulz, A., Parker, E. and Becker, A. (1998) Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19: 173-202 Kinglsey, J. Y. (2006) 'Dig in' to social capital: community gardens as mechanisms for growing urban social connectedness. Urban policy and research 24(4): 525-538. Knoot, Sinan (January 2009). "The Urban Agriculture of Havana". Monthly Review (Monthly Review Foundation) 60: 44-63. http://www.monthlyreview.org/090119koont.php Lambeth Council (2010) The Co-operative Council A new settlement between citizens and public services A new approach to public service delivery [Online] http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/CA6C2E2F-33E4-48CE-82C1D7E0E82EEF9E/0/CooperativeCouncilWhitePaper.pdf [Accessed 20/9/2010] Lambeth Council (2010) Statistics and Census Information [Online] Available at: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/CouncilDemocracy/StatisticsCensusInformation/ [Accessed

on 21/9/2010] Lewis, Charles A. (1990). Gardening as Healing Process. In The Meaning of Gardens: Idea, Place, and Action, ed. Mark Francis and Randolph T. Hester, Jr., 244-251. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Lotter, Don (February 2, 2009). "Cuban Organic Conference". Rodale Institute. http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/international/features/0703/cubaconf.shtml. Mark, Jason (Spring 2007). "Growing it Alone". Earth Island Institute. http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/growing_it_alone/. Retrieved 2010-0518. McCullum (1997)Evidence-Based Strategies to Build Community Food Security Local food systems and sustainable communities American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 12: 28-36 Moskow A. (1999) The contribution of urban agriculture to gardeners their household and their surrounding communities: The case of Havana Cuba In: For hunger-proof cities: sustainable urban food systems Ed. Mustafa Koc , International Development Research Centre (Canada) Norguard, R.B., (1987). Economics as mechanics and the demise of biological diversity. Ecological Modelling, 38: 107-121. Marksa, N., Thompsona, S., Eckersleyb, R., Jackson, T. and Kasserd. T. (2006) DEFRA Project 3b: Sustainable development and well-being: relationships, challenges and policy implications A report by the centre for well-being, nef (the new economics foundation) for Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) [Online] Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/what/priority/well being/research.htm [Accessed on 20/9/2010] Jackson, T. and Maltby, P. (2007) Living Well - Within Limits SDC Discussion Document on Well being Indicators for Sustainable Development [Online]Available at: http://www.sdcommission.org.uk/publications.php?id=546 [Accessed 20/9/2010] McCullum, C., Desjardins, E., Kraak, V.I., Ladipo, P., Costello, H. (2005) Evidence-Based Strategies to Build Community Food Security, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 105(2):278-83. Naess, A., (1989). Ecology, Community and Lifestyle. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ostrom, E., (1993) Social Capital and Development Projects. Unpublished paper prepared for workshop Social Capital and Economic Deveopment, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, MA, 3031 July 1993. Parkin, S. (2000) Sustainable development: the concept and the practical challenge: Proceedings of the ICE - Civil Engineering, 138 (6): 3 8

Pesqueux, Y. (2009) "Sustainable development: a vague and ambiguous theory", Society and Business Review, 4(3) 231 245 Porritt, J. (2009) The standing of sustainable development in Government. Forum for the future {Online] http://www.forumforthefuture.org/files/standing-of-sustainable-development-ingovernment.pdf# [Accessed 1/9/2010] Project Dirt (2010) Project Dirt [Online] http://www.projectdirt.com/ Putnam, Robert D. (1995) Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital . Journal of Democracy 6(1): 65-78 Quayle, H. (2008) The true value of community farms and gardens: social, environmental, health and economic, federation of city farms and community gardens The true value of community farms and gardens: social, environmental, health and economic, federation of city farms and community gardens [Online]Available at: http://www.farmgarden.org.uk/publications [Accessed on 20/10/2010] Roseland, M (2000) Sustainable community development: integrating environmental, economic, and social objectives, Progress in Planning 54: 73132 Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Journal of Psychology 55:6878 Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2001). ON HAPPINESS AND HUMAN POTENTIALS: A Review of Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being. Annual Review of Psychology 52:14166 Rondenburg, J. (1994) Connecting with Nature, The Ontario Journal of Outdoor Education, 6 (5): 33-36 Ryff, C.D. (1989) Happiness Is Everything, or Is It? Explorations on the Meaning of Psychological Well-Being Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, (6) 1069-1081 Schmelzkopf, K. (1995)Urban Community Gardens as Contested Space Geographical Review, 85(3), pp. 364-381. Schmelzkopf, K. (2002) Incommensurability, land use, and the right to space: community gardens in New York City. Urban Geography 23:323-343 Skolimowski, H., (1981). Eco-Philosophy. Boyars, London. Smith, CM. and Kurtz, H.E. (2003) Community gardens and politics of scale in New York City, The Geographical Review, 93(2): 193-212. Spence, A., Venables, D., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W. and Demski, C. (2010). Public Perceptions of Climate Change and Energy Futures in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted in JanuaryMarch 2010. Technical Report (Understanding Risk Working Paper 10-01). Cardiff: School of Psychology

Spirn, A. 1984. The granite garden. New York: Basic Books. Toynbee, P. (2010) The 'big society' is a big fat lie just follow the money [Online]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/06/big-society-is-big-fat-lie [Accessed 20/9/2010] Transition Town Brixton (2010) Food and Growing Group [Online] Available at: http://www.site.transitiontownbrixton.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117 &Itemid=63 [Accessed on 22/09/10] United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (1992) Agenda 21, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (available on the Internet on gopher:;sh;shunep.unep.no:70/7waissrc%3A/un/unced/agenda21.src). Viljoen, A. and Bohn, K. (2005), Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes (CPULs): designing urban agriculture for sustainable cities, Oxford, Architectural Press. Voicu, I and Been, V. (2008) The Effect of Community Gardens on Neighbouring Property Values, Real estate economics, 36 (2): 241283 Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J. & Skinner, A.(2007) Growing urban health: Community gardening, South-East Toronto Health Promotion International, 22 (5): 5 Warner, V. D. (2006) Finding common ground: community garden as connector between culture nature and the individual. Theses for Masters in Landscape Architecture, The University of Texas at Arlington Wells, B., Gradwell, S. and Yoder, R. (1999) Growing food, growing community: Community Supported Agriculture in rural Iowa, Community Development Journal, 34 (1): 38-46. Wingfield, R. (2010) Metabolicity grow labs [Online] http://www.metabolicity.com/ [Accessed 20/09/2010] Our Common Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Published as Annex to General Assembly document A/42/427, Development and International Co-operation: Environment August 2, 1987. Retrieved, 2007.11.14 Ziller, A. (2004) The Community is Not a Place and Why it MattersCase Study: Green Square, Urban Policy and Research, 22(4), 465 479