Community gardening initiatives Attitudes and behaviors towards community gardening participation in Sydhavn
Mihaela-Adriana Nițu Sofia Christina Thordin
Main field of study – Leadership and Organization Degree of Master of Arts (60 credits) with a Major in Leadership and Organization Master Thesis with a focus on Leadership and Organization for Sustainability (OL646E), 15 credits Spring 2020 Supervisor: Chiara Vitrano Abstract
The waterfront community of Sydhavn in Copenhagen, Denmark is architecturally praised, but also criticized for its lack of public green space. Residents in the area have self-organized a community gardening initiative to combat this lack of greenery. The thesis aims to explore this occurrence by providing an analysis of the attitudes and behaviors towards social and environmental aspects of sustainability and individual residents’ resistance or support towards community gardening initiatives. The research design is based on quantitative methods with an exploratory purpose, using an online survey methodology. The main findings show that there is an association among knowledge of sustainability concepts, sustainable attitudes and behaviors, and interest in community gardening participation in the study population. Moreover, individuals who indicate no interest in community gardening lack a desire to join in the future, although they may be encouraged to do so with more education and advertisement. Generally, the study population feels positively towards community gardening and feels there is a need for it in the area. Further research may investigate aspects such as politics and policies related to community gardening and replicate a similar study in a different sociodemographic context to see how the results differ. The results of this study have practical implications for academics, built environment practitioners and community gardening organizers.
Keywords: community gardening, grassroots initiatives, community engagement, social capital
Acknowledgment
This paper would have not been possible without the support of a few people who we would like to express gratitude towards. We would firstly like to thank our thesis supervisor, Chiara Vitrano, for her time, dedication, and support whenever we ran into a challenge or had a question about our research or writing. She was truly always there when we needed her help. We would also like to thank our research participants and contact person from the study area. Without their participation and input, this study could have not been successfully conducted. Finally, we would like to thank each other. Sofia, I would like to thank my research partner Adriana for proposing an exciting, grand vision at the beginning of our process and maintaining her contagious optimism the whole way through. It has been a pleasure brainstorming, working, and video-chatting together over the past 2 months. Despite closed borders and global lockdown, we never felt closer! Adriana, I am grateful for Sofia’s the patience, expertise and understanding. Even in these difficult corona times, we still managed to do the most out of everything, “seeing” each other every day, and celebrated small successes when we had them. I am grateful for the writing process and for how the entire project went. I truly do not think there could have been anyone else I could have gone through this with in such a short time and really enjoy the process too.
Table of contents
List of Abbreviations ...... 4 1. Introduction ...... 5 1.1. Background ...... 5 1.1.2. Historical development of community gardens……………………………………………………………………… 7 1.1.3. Definition of community gardening……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7 1.2. Research problem ...... 8 1.5. Aim ...... 9 1.6. Research questions ...... 9 1.7. Structure of the thesis ...... 9 2. Literature review and theoretical framework ...... 11 2.1. Literature review ...... 11 2.1.1. Benefits and challenging facets of community gardening………………………………………………. 11 2.1.1.1. Social and community...... 11 2.1.1.2. Environment and green space ...... 12 2.1.1.3. Economic facets of community gardens ...... 13 2.1.3. Attitudes and behaviors on sustainability concerns of communities………………………… 14 2.1.3.1. Activism and volunteerism in community gardens ...... 15 2.1.3.2. Grassroots leadership ...... 17 2.2. Theoretical framework ...... 17 2.2.1. Sustainable development…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 18 2.2.2. Community engagement and participation………………………………………………………………………….. 21 2.2.3. Social capital………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23 2.3. Sub-conclusion and theoretical framework ...... 23 3. Methodology and Methods ...... 25 3.1. Research design ...... 25 3.1.1. Methods for data collection……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26 3.1.2. Measures for data analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 27 3.1.3. Methods for data analysis……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29 3.1.4. Reliability, Replicability, and Validity…………………………………………………………………………………………. 29 3.2. Object of study ...... 30 3.2.1. Historical and cultural context………………………………………………………………………………………………………..30 3.2.2. Situation appraisal………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 34 3.2.3. Informal communication…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..39
4. Analysis ...... 41 4.1. Sample ...... 41 4.2. Results ...... 42 4.3. Analysis of the results ...... 49 4.3.1. Attitudes and behaviors ...... 49 4.3.2. Participation ...... 50 4.4. Practical implications for community gardening organizers ...... 52 4.5. Limitations ...... 53 5. Conclusion and Discussion ...... 54 List of references ...... i Appendix ...... vi Appendix 1 - The tree of life ...... vi Appendix 2 - Ecosystem services for Community gardens ...... vii Appendix 3 - Strategic stakeholder engagement ...... viii Appendix 4 - Inspiration of the object of study ...... x Appendix 5 - Sydhavn’s zoning and green configuration ...... xi Appendix 6 - Raw survey data ...... xvi Appendix 7 - Scale composition ...... xx Appendix 8 - Copy of the survey questionnaire ...... xxi
List of figures
Figure 1. Structure of the thesis ...... 10 Figure 2. The Triple Bottom Line ...... 19 Figure 3. Theoretical model ...... 24 Figure 4. Satellite capture of the historical development ...... 31 Figure 5. Mapping representation with the socioeconomic indicators ...... 33 Figure 6. Art shared to a Sydhavn locals Facebook group ...... 34 Figure 7. Views from Sluseholmen with some buildings and the canal ...... 35 Figure 8. Views from the interior courtyards ...... 36 Figure 9. Views of the streets and surrounding areas...... 37 Figure 10. Sydhavn’s map with zoning ...... 38 Figure 11. Survey data demographics ...... 41 Figure 12. Participation interest ...... 44 Figure 13. Knowledge of any community gardening ...... 45 Figure 14. Reasons for interest in participating in community gardening ...... 45
Figure 15. Reasons for lack of interest in participating in community gardening ...... 46 Figure 16. What would encourage respondents to participate in community gardening .... 46 Figure 17. Types of plants respondents are interested in growing ...... 47 Figure 18. What kind of space respondents would be interested in ...... 47 Figure 19. How respondents would like to participate in community gardening ...... 48 Figure 20. How often respondents would like to participate in community gardening ...... 48
List of tables
Table 1. Timeline of the community gardens in Europe ...... 7 Table 2. Social sustainability key themes ...... 19 Table 3. Benefits of community engagement...... 21 Table 4. Socioeconomic data comparison of Sydhavn ...... 32 Table 5. Overview of the informal communication...... 39 Table 6. Attitudes and behaviors vs. Familiarity ...... 42 Table 7. Sustainability attitudes and behaviors vs. Participation interest ...... 43 Table 8. Need and awareness vs. Attitudes towards community gardening ...... 43
List of Abbreviations
CE Community engagement CGI Community gardening initiatives CG Community garden DSP Dominant Social Paradigm GI Grassroots initiatives KEL Kongens Enghave Local Committee NEP New Environmental Paradigm SC Social capital TBL Triple Bottom Line
Word count: 19.206
1. Introduction
Today’s post-industrialized Western cities face spatial challenges with growing populations, but finite land. Copenhagen’s South Harbor waterfront (referred to in this paper by its Danish name, Sydhavn1) is no exception; it has been under near-constant construction for the past 20 years as part of the city’s bid to increase its housing stock and redevelop its underutilized waterfronts (Hansen, 2015). Sydhavn’s waterfront plan for eco- friendly development has resulted in architectural praise and general success but has also faced sharp criticisms for its lack of greenery and public spaces (Hansen, 2015). Subsequently, a group of citizens in Sydhavn’s waterfront have organized a community gardening initiative (CGI) to combat this lack of public green space. In this paper, community gardening is defined as a “plot of land gardened collectively by a group of people living in an urban area” (Tharrey et al., 2019, p. 2). Where policy fails to address local problems, grassroots initiatives generate solutions addressing communities’ interests, needs, and values, with the communities having control over the processes and outcomes (Smith et al., 2017). Community gardens (CGs) have a long history in addressing social and environmental issues at the grassroots level. While the current body of literature robustly covers the reasons behind CGIs, as well as the resulting social, economic, and environmental impacts, there is little discussion about how individual’s attitudes and behaviors relate to participation in CGs, if at all. In fact, lack of participation is one of top challenges CGs face (Drake & Lawson, 2014). The CGI in Sydhavn’s waterfront presents an opportunity to investigate a current ongoing effort where further research may provide immediate insight to the underlying processes relating to participation and CGs. Community gardening involves complex interrelations among social, environmental, and economic interests and decision-making powers, which broadly relates to the concepts of sustainability, leadership, and organization. Besides the potential to contribute immediate insight into a real-world phenomenon, review of the academic literature suggests that there is a research gap specifically focusing on human attitudes and behaviors as they relate to participation in CGs. Previous research discussed in this paper, pinpoints the lack of participation as a primary issue for successful CGIs, legitimizing further studies of the topic. The thesis aims to explore this occurrence by providing an analysis of the attitudes and behaviors towards social and environmental aspects of sustainability and individual residents’ resistance or support towards community gardening initiatives.
1.1. Background
In recent decades, humans have become increasingly aware of developing resource limitations and degradation of natural systems. This resource consumption has embedded effects on human health and wellbeing and social disruptions in addition to the environmental destruction (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016). The Brundtland Commission famously
1 Sydhavn is the colloquial name for Copenhagen’s entire South Harbor area, but the legal name is Kongens Enghave. Note that the authors refer specifically to the new development through the Sydhavn’s waterfront.
| 5
described sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland et al., 1987, p. 8). Over time, this definition has carried over to also encompass the more general term of sustainability. While the demand for sustainable development increased in the global sphere, the City of Copenhagen was experiencing a period of high financial and social pressures. Around the 1990s, the City of Copenhagen suffered immense financial hardship due to dwindling industry which was followed by a political decree to develop Copenhagen as an attractive city for all to live. This plan outlined the development of diverse new neighborhoods, quality design, and called for a comprehensive plan for the Copenhagen Harbor (Københavns Kommune, 2013). Like many other post-industrial cities, the Copenhagen Harbor area began with heavy industry and shipping. However, by the 1970s most remaining industry was gone and soon after Sydhavn was transformed into an appealing area for IT companies like Nokia. In the past 20 years, the area of Sydhavn has experienced extreme fluctuations in physical design and use. Currently, the effects of Copenhagen’s 1999 decision to redevelop the harbor, provide diverse housing, and build quality developments is in full force. For the redevelopment of Sydhavn’s waterfront, a Dutch design team used inspiration from other Amsterdam-based developments such as the Java-island and Borneo-island, as well as other areas of Copenhagen, like Christianhavn and Fredriksstaden, focusing on generating social interaction from semi-enclosed private spaces (i.e., shared courtyards) and recreational opportunities for the residents, while taking advantage of the harbor experience (Københavns Kommune, 2013). In 2009, the area won awards for excellence in urban design and architecture. The goals of the project included sustainable building methods, high architectural quality, integration of housing and commercial business, and including a broad demographic of possible residents, while offering variation in pricing and ownership opportunities (Københavns Kommune, 1999). However, the local plan acknowledges that these solutions may not suffice in the long term, as the medium-term focus is to fulfill the need for expansion and growing housing demand, implying that future interventions may be needed to fulfill the needs of future residents. Community gardening, in general terms, is not a new activity for the residents of the area. The buildings are configured so as to offer the opportunity for residents to have space to plant various kinds of greenery, collectively chosen by the people living in the buildings and sharing the courtyards. However, community gardening as referred in this paper is not well-researched in the literature, especially in connection to Sydhavn. The following section aims to give an overview of the historical development of community gardens and the definitions attributed.
| 6
1.1.2. Historical development of community gardens Community gardens’ transformative abilities and their impacts across nations are well- documented throughout history (Pudup, 2008). They have existed since the formation of cities, but the specific types of CGs that are emerging today have their origins in the industrialized Western world. The rise of industrialization, which consumed urban space and time, was the determining factor separating food production from the homes of city- dwellers (Bell et al., 2016). The world wars and the Great Depression motivated activists, advocates, and politicians to focus their attention on crafting new plans and solutions supporting urban food production to alleviate hunger until the economies recovered and the markets could provide enough food for their citizens (Bell et al., 2016). Table 1 demonstrates a detailed summary of community gardening in Europe throughout history. Today, community gardening and urban agriculture have become comprehensive components for the revitalization and conservation of cities, considered new strategies for the sustainable development of communities. Programs and policies are setting the goals to facilitate local sustainability, with particular focus and interest in communities, encouraging community participation to address local solutions to local problems (Ohmer et al., 2009). Table 1. Timeline of the community gardens in Europe (Bell et al., 2016)
Year Phase Key factors affecting urban gardening Country 1700 - 1910 Industrialization ● Early provision of land for the poor Pioneers: Austria, Belgium, ● City Beautiful Movement Denmark, Finland, Grance, ● New towns and suburbs laid out by Germany, Luxembourg, Ireland, philanthropic industrialists Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK 1911 - 1950 The world wars ● Allotments as a solution to hunger and Pioneers plus Croatia, the Czech and Great unemployment Republic, Estonia, Italy, Latvia, Depression ● Victory gardens Lithuania, Spain ● International allotment movement ● Allotment clubs and associations 1951 - 1972 Post-war ● Ending of war Pioneers except former East decline ● Post-war urban development Germany, Estonia, Latvia, ● Decline of unemployment Lithuania ● Advances in living standards 1973 - The revival of ● Increased disconnection between people Pioneers and newcomers: present urban gardens and nature Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Portugal, ● Rise of the environmental movement Serbia, Spain ● Neo-traditionalism ● Sustainable development ● Globalization ● Twenty-first century economic depression
1.1.3. Definition of community gardening Community gardening deals with projects such as local greening and beautification of an area, food security, as well as initiatives that strengthen the connection between the community and the natural environment (Ohmer et al., 2009). The definition of ‘community gardening’ has a wide variety in the literature but is yet to have an articulated consensus.
| 7
A ‘community’ is defined as “a group of people with diverse characteristics who are linked by social ties, share common perspectives, and engage in joint action in geographical locations or settings” (MacQueen et al., 2001, p. 1929). Furthermore, the ‘garden’ from ‘community gardening’ can be a “plot of collectively cultivated land, in food or ornamental crops, to which participating community members enjoy specified harvest rights or an assemblage of individually cultivated plots” (Pudup, 2008, p. 1229). However, these initiatives further include on-site workshops and maintenance activities of the common facilities, as well as community events to strengthen the sense of participation, ownership, and trustworthiness (Pudup, 2008; Whatley et al., 2015; Egli et al., 2016). Depending on the type of gardens, some food is grown and consumed by the people who grow it, whereas in other gardens, the food is sold to certain markets (i.e., local farmer markets or restaurants) seeking locally grown produce (Pudup, 2008). Gardens may be various shapes and sizes. Multiple factors may vary, including types of community, geographic locations, participants, and plot type (Pudup, 2008). A broader definition of ‘community gardens’ highlights community gardening as “a plot of land gardened collectively by a group of people living in an urban area” (Tharrey et al., 2019, p. 2). In this study, ‘community gardening’ refers to any conservation activities such as cleaning, planting, or beautification of an area, where one engages within a community garden space.
1.2. Research problem
Despite international praise for excellence in urban design and architecture, Sydhavn’s new development Sluseholmen and its neighboring areas (i.e., Teglholmen, Enghave Brygge, and Frederiks Brygge) have received criticism for missing the mark on place-making, central public spaces, and recreational parks (Københavns Kommune, 2013). Even the warm, inviting courtyard spaces, which were otherwise so prominently focused in the design guidelines, would not suffice in the current context (Project initiator, 6th of March 2020). Furthermore, the streetscapes and sidewalks are too narrow to support the sense of a main street. Critiques about the lack of space for street activities like outdoor seating, signage, clothing racks or merchandise, and so forth, argue that the design has inhibited a lively public street experience. Additionally, connected to the updated development plans of the four neighborhoods, where the most recent plans are acknowledging a need for future interventions, the old planning from 1999 only scarcely mentioned the green configuration of these areas (see Appendix 5). These faults are the core reasoning for some citizens’ desires to liven up the community and add to its public green space in the form of a CGI in Sydhavn’s waterfront. Community gardening has become a well-researched practice in the social science community, especially in the context of urban conservation initiatives. It is also believed to benefit food security, human health, local ecology, and social capital. It creates opportunities for community-building and development, which supports the sense of belonging, collaborative growth and contributing to bettering the ecological and aesthetic of the neighborhood (Firth et al., 2011; Ong et al., 2019; Guitart et al., 2012).
| 8
1.5. Aim
The target audience of this thesis includes academics, built environment practitioners and community gardening organizers, dealing with social sustainability issues and community engagement. Getting a deeper understanding of how these initiatives are being formed, and ultimately establishing theoretical and practical recommendations for different practitioners are paramount. The paper supports the following purpose: To understand the relationship between the attitudes and behaviors towards the social and environmental aspects of sustainability in community gardening initiatives and individual residents’ resistance or support.
1.6. Research questions
Based on the aim of the research, this paper has the following main research question: How do individuals’ attitudes and behaviors towards sustainability concerns promote or hinder participation in community gardening initiatives? To answer the research questions and guide the development of this paper, the authors have created additional sub-questions. All the sub-questions will be grounded in the literature and theoretical review, then applied on the specific case from Sydhavn, supporting the investigation of community gardening and stakeholder engagement processes. The sub-questions are as follows: I. In the study population, what are the individual attitudes and behaviors towards community gardening initiatives? II. In the study population, why do individuals refrain or not from engaging in community gardening initiatives? III. In the study population, what would encourage individual citizen’s participation in community gardening initiatives? IV. In the study population, how would willing individuals prefer to participate in community gardening initiatives?
1.7. Structure of the thesis The structure of this paper is presented as follows. Firstly, the authors describe the objectives and motivations of the study, and the contextualization of CGs and their historical development (Chapter 1). It is then followed by a review of the literature on the aspects of community gardening related to the benefits, attitudes and behaviors, ultimately presenting the theoretical components related to community gardening, sustainable development, community engagement, and social capital, providing the reader with an understanding of the wide array of perspectives community gardening could address (Chapter 2). The methodology is presented, followed by the primary data collection and object of study (Chapter 3). Finally, the empirical findings are discussed, in relation to the case and the survey questionnaire focused on the study population from the four neighborhoods from the waterfront area of Sydhavn (Chapter 4 and 5).
| 9
Figure 1. Structure of the thesis (Authors’ representation)
| 10
2. Literature review and theoretical framework
This chapter provides a literature and theoretical background about CGIs, in addition to their social, economic, and environmental benefits and criticisms. It also discusses attitudes and behaviors towards environmental issues, laying a foundation for the study.
2.1. Literature review
2.1.1. Benefits and challenging facets of community gardening
In order to understand the benefits of CGIs for individuals and communities, their related characteristics must be further investigated. For this reason, the following section discusses the literature on community cohesion and green space benefits or critiques from a social, environmental, and economic perspective, respectively.
2.1.1.1. Social and community
CGs have played a key role in providing opportunities for food security, generating income for urban residents, and engaging them in outdoor physical and social activities throughout history (Egli et al., 2016). The literature associates the benefits of CGs with aspects of well- being. Well-being is becoming increasingly popular for governmental agencies, health promoters, and academics when measuring community cohesion and societal progress. Well-being is not only the absence of disease, but also the conditions of optimal physical and mental functioning with resilience, positive emotional experience, and overall life satisfaction (Huppert & So, 2013, p. 838). Egli and colleagues (2016) discuss that, although well-being may not be a central focus of CGs, considering well-being is of high importance as the general outcomes of CG participation positively influence well-being. They have developed a model synthesizing the literature on the aspects of CG participation, grouping the factors into two overarching categories of nutritional health environment and social environment (see Appendix 1).
Community cohesion Kuo and colleagues (1998), examined the effects of the neighborhood environment on the development of social ties in a public housing community in a neighborhood in Chicago. The study demonstrated that public areas with more vegetation and greenery were associated with higher levels of use by residents, thus providing more opportunities for informal social interaction among neighbors. They explained that “greener common spaces appear to attract people outdoors, increasing opportunities for casual social encounters among neighbors and foster the development of neighborhood social ties” (Kuo et al., 1998, p. 848). Having a CG improves residents’ attitudes toward their neighborhood in 55% of gardens, demonstrated by improved maintenance of other properties, decreased litter, and increased pride (Armstrong, 2000). Similarly, other studies found that 20% of gardening volunteers, are more engaged in political activism, in addition to forming coalitions to work on fundraising, workshops, rallies, outreach, and other community campaigns (Saldivar-Tanaka et al., 2003).
| 11
Ownership and pride CGs can provide unique learning opportunities for youth and promote a sense of self, identity, and ownership for their neighborhood (Ohmer et al., 2009). Hung (2004) studied a CG in Brooklyn, New York, where young interns report developing a sense of self and identity, and the opportunity to demonstrate their importance and value to the community, in addition to learning new gardening skills, strengthening their interpersonal skills by nurturing a garden and working in a team. Youth contribute to their communities by transforming a place in their neighborhood into something beautiful, with the gardens providing a safe space where they can interact with one another and with trusted adults (Ohmer et al., 2009). Related to SC, bringing people together with a common purpose to participate in a joint activity or venture mirrors the social connections of people, and creates a powerful sense of ownership and pride (Firth et al., 2011). Studies find that CGs strongly relate to volunteerism and reciprocation, as those contributing might learn new skills and can extend their social networks. CGs also create a meeting place, enabling people to interact and contribute to community creation, providing a space where people can gather, network, and identify with one another as residents of a neighborhood (Glover, 2004). In other words, CGs create something similar to a “third space”, outside the home or workplace. Regarding criticism of the social aspects of CGs, Kuo and colleagues (1998) have discussed the mismatch between what communities want and need from their neighborhoods, and what the physical environment of some neighborhoods supports. This suggests that an action research approach defines the focus of the intervention efforts, suggesting that planting “trees and grass in neighborhood common spaces, as well as other efforts to increase residents' use of these common spaces, are likely to have significant, positive impacts” (Kuo et al., 1998, p. 847). Other studies have also shown that although CGs are a symbol of collective achievements within a neighborhood, the development process can also be, in some cases, associated with unequal access to SC (Glover, 2004). Participants in CGIs which are not part of the core-group, feel detached from the planning processes because of their weak social positions, leaving them unable to mobilize the SC produced by the gardening network and achieve their gardening aims. Therefore, lack of access to resources can lead to possible acts of resistance from members of a community (Glover, 2004).
2.1.1.2. Environment and green space CGs contribute immeasurable environmental value to their surroundings (Wolf & Robbins, 2015). The extensive resource consumption of cities worldwide is linked to climate change, which makes the mitigation potential of urban green spaces especially relevant. It may be argued that urban settings have a responsibility to adopt climate adaptation strategies due to their vast resource usage. Research has generated robust evidence that both man- made and organic natural spaces in cities contribute significantly to ecosystem services, as well as public health co-benefits (Wolf & Robbins, 2015). Ecosystem services in an urban context can be described as a flow of benefits, sustained by its structure and processes, that the network of urban green spaces provides to humans (Bell et al., 2016, p. 116).
| 12
Services like water purification and mitigation of the urban heat island effect are well- established as positive externalities of micro-scale nature elements in cities (Wolf & Robbins, 2015). These benefits, in turn, enhance humans’ physical and mental wellbeing which implies that the socio-ecological well-being of an area can be elevated by CGs, among other types of urban green spaces. There are a few different types of ecosystem services. Provisioning services pertain to the direct products extracted by humans from ecosystems, such as food, water, or wood (Naturvårdsverket, 2018). Regulating services include benefits that affect or govern natural processes, like water purification, carbon sequestration, and climate regulation (Naturvårdsverket, 2018). Cultural services are non-material benefits that contribute to human development and advancement, while supporting services are the underlying flow of benefits that other ecosystem services depend on to function, like photosynthesis (Naturvårdsverket, 2018). Academic findings linking ecosystem services to urban green spaces, including CGs, are outlined by service type in Appendix 2 Depending on the unique environmental and socio-economic context, the relevant ecosystem services for a given city may vary greatly. Despite the many benefits linked to CGs and urban green space, one must be cautious of ecosystem disservices. Ecosystem disservices are defined as “functions of ecosystems that are perceived as negative for human well-being” (Gómez-Baggethun & Barton, 2013, p. 238). For example, an ecosystem disservice of urban biodiversity may include pests or allergic reactions from wind pollinated plants. Therefore, it is important to weigh services and disservices when evaluating any practical cost-benefit analysis for CGs. Additionally, topics like size, scale, and context must be considered when gauging the net effect of a CG in a given location. Garden size, number of gardens, number of participants, types of plants, etc., will all determine the significance of its effects (Okvat & Zatura, 2011). One must be aware that the scale of benefits received is variable depending on the context.
2.1.1.3. Economic facets of community gardens The economic advantages of CGs are difficult to quantify, largely because the greatest strengths relate to society and environment which do not possess established monetary values. It is quite paradoxical that its economic values are unestablished, given that the primary social drivers of urban gardens throughout history include poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity which can all be directly linked to economic conditions. Connections between CGs and fiscal gain are widely supported by academic research. The economic value of ecosystem services provided by urban green spaces have been studied using various methods. Results estimate, for example, 3.8 billion USD in public value for the air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs across 55 American cities (Wolf & Robbins, 2015). Some methods of economic valuations focus on the avoided cost that may have occurred if an amenity did not exist. This method was applied in a United States study which estimated avoided health care costs associated with increased physical activity in parks to be worth between 4 and 69.4 million USD per year (Wolf & Robbins, 2015). Although urban green space is known to provide many positive externalities, it has not been embraced by urban economics and policy (Wolf & Robbins, 2015). Consequently, numerous
| 13
studies have attempted to express the economic or monetary value of ecosystem services. It is important to note that many decision-making processes focus on cost-benefit estimates, which can be challenging to address since ecosystem services do not reflect monetary market prices. It is vital to introduce this divide between what is accepted by research and what is acted upon in practice which results from the lack of economic valuation strategies for benefits provided by urban green spaces like CGs (Wolf & Robbins, 2015). Generally, “the creation and maintenance of green space positively influence real estate prices and contribute to the economic and social stability of urban areas” (Bell et al., 2016, p. 99). They can be used to enhance blighted areas in the city or subjectively improve an area since urban greenery is linked to increased property prices, tourism, and shopping revenues (Wolf & Robbins, 2015). Although the economic values of CGs or urban green spaces seem to be linked with increased property values and, in general, are a desirable community asset, there are potential downsides. Gentrification is a complex issue associated with community gardening and urban renewal-type initiatives. Simply put, gentrification is a process that clears away perceived issues by pushing residents out, where the displaced residents are often in a vulnerable socio-economic demographic (Larsen & Hansen, 2008). Furthermore, the concept of green gentrification posits that the current policy emphasis on sustainable cities reinforces or worsens urban inequalities (Blok, 2020, p. 2). For example, the Danish government has implemented a renewal program to uplift “disadvantaged neighborhoods by involving local residents” (Certomà, Noori, & Sondermann, 2019, p. 118). The renewal program is designed to increase cohesion in Danish cities by paradoxically promoting investment in non-profit low-income housing while renewing neighborhoods to become more attractive for middle class residents (Certomà et al., 2019). Oftentimes, CGIs administered from the top-down (i.e., government- led initiatives) can nudge a neighborhood into a more investment-friendly and gentrifiable condition (Certomà et al., 2019). New green elements can either be used as a stimulant for green gentrification, or the gentrifying class can assert its political status to demand environmental improvements (Blok, 2020, p. 5). In summary, the potential increase in real- estate prices, visitation, etc., caused by green assets can be viewed as either beneficial or damaging, depending on residents' vulnerability to price fluctuations. However, CGIs also have the potential to empower citizens and transform inequalities for marginalized neighborhoods at a grassroots level. Bottom-up, grassroots initiatives are often more connected to citizen’s rights to the city and shared public space. In summary, research shows that depending on unique context, community gardening can either enhance civic empowerment and socio-environmental justice or it can be used to amplify existing inequalities and push a hidden agenda (Certomà et al., 2019).
2.1.2. Attitudes and behaviors on sustainability concerns of communities
There is a general debate around the globe, suggesting that “one nation’s ecological or social problems ascent in large parts from the traditional values, attitudes and beliefs prevalent within a society” (Disch, 1970, p.158). To exemplify, Dunlap and Van have addressed the following:
| 14
Our belief in abundance and progress, our devotion to growth and prosperity, our faith in science and technology, and our commitment to a laissez-faire economy, limited to governmental planning and private property rights, contribute to an environmental degradation and hinder efforts to improve the quality of the environment (2008, p. 19). These aspects argued that society’s “Dominant Social Paradigm” (DSP) constitutes a view “through which individuals or, collectively, a society interpret the meaning of the external world and a mental image of a society that guides expectations” (Dunlap & Van, 2008, p. 19). However, from the 1970s, a “New Environmental Paradigm” (NEP) began to challenge the traditional DSP. The NEP was described as: “A belief in the limits to growth, the necessity to balance economic growth with environmental protection, the need to preserve the balance of nature, and for humans to live in harmony with nature” (Dunlap & Van, 2008, p. 19). Studies across cultures and time provide clear insights into the basic values and beliefs to which specific environmental attitudes and actions are based, serving as aid for interpreting paradigmatic shifts (Scott & Willits, 1994). However, it is likely that not all people support the NEP and would consistently engage in behaviors compatible with these ideas. Consideration of both attitudes and behaviors is crucial in assessing the environmental concerns in communities. Studies found that questions regarding age, education, income or political ideology are somewhat predictive on assessing the attitudes and actions, where young, well-educated, and politically liberal were the most environmentally concerned, while gender is found as being related to these concerns, but not as consistently as the variables cited above (Dunlap & Van, 2008). Much of the data available assessing the nature and correlations of sustainability concerns across societies is based on studies over 10 years old, and the American context. Some recent psychological studies have connected social identity with climate change and environmental concerns. The social identity approach is based on two interrelated theories, social identity theory and self-categorization theory, each seeking to explain how individual attitudes, emotions and behaviors are influenced by belonging to a specific group (Fielding & Hornsey, 2016). This approach describes the self-concept as both a personal and social identity. The personal identity only comprises the aspects of oneself, while social identities derive from the groups to which one belongs to. There is a general consensus that not all people that might express interest towards environmental issues would consistently engage in behaviors compatible with these ideas (Scott & Willits, 1994), as well as the influences a social group has on individuals and their behaviors regarding environmental issues (Fielding & Hornsey, 2016). Through the literature search, aspects like activism and volunteerism were also present and show high relevance in connection to the attitudes and behaviors towards environmental concerns, and ultimately, towards CGs.
2.1.2.1. Activism and volunteerism in community gardens Traditionally, digging raised beds and planting vegetables are not conventional representations of activism (Nettle, 2014). When talking about social movement actions, activism goes beyond acts of resistance, mass protests and individual heroism, and CGs
| 15
can be positioned as some kind of activism. However, the term activist can sometimes be either embraced or rejected by social movement participants themselves, and many people that actually do activism do not identify themselves as activists. Through a social movement lens, community gardening highlights more than just the benefits of a community, but an under-recognized aspect of the practice: its role as a form of collective social action (Nettle, 2014). Social movement activism, discussed by Nettle (2014) regards participation in collective practices employed consciously and strategically in order to make political claims, effect social change, create solidarity and build movements. Nonetheless, the concept of activism should not be used for all kinds of volunteering, community service, good works, and selective consumption. These aspects also suggest that one can easily determine whether or not a person is an activist by simply scrutinizing their actions, without inquiring whether or not the person sees themselves as an activist. When trying to understand CGs as a form of activism, Nettle (2014) interviewed several community gardeners, using open-ended questions to avoid prejudice on the experiences of community gardeners and to invite the interviewees into describing their activities in their own terms. Several CG organizers describe these choices as a form of social change work, citing ideological, strategic, and biographical reasons for their decisions (Nettle, 2014). Another form of engagement is volunteerism. The act of volunteerism can positively benefit individuals mentally, psychologically, and socially. A study by Wilson and Musick (2000) discusses that volunteerism fosters “interpersonal trust, toleration, empathy for others, and respect for the common good” (p. 148). Volunteering for a CGI can also strengthen the connection among neighbors, regarded as social integration or social capital. It can establish personal validation for the individual and promote self-efficacy, foster individual self-confidence and belief that they can make a difference in their community (Wilson & Musick, 2000). Therefore, participating in creating or maintaining a CG, facilitates volunteers’ skills, abilities, and social relationships (Ohmer et al., 2009). Volunteerism is also seen as an integral part of community gardening, perceived as an altruistic activity, with individuals volunteering to create something of use and benefit for the wider public (Firth et al., 2011). Although volunteerism and activism could display similarities in social action, placed in relation with social ties, empowerment, and psychological well-being, it is important to understand the differences between the two. Some studies have suggested that activism is more beneficial to psychological well-being, builds better social ties, and is more empowering than volunteering. Regarding empowerment, volunteerism and activism are distinct experiences of work, with the main difference being that one works for social change, while the other works to help individuals (Gilster, 2012). As activism is associated with empowerment and contact with officials, volunteerism is associated more with social ties, which should therefore be investigated as distinct activities (Gilster, 2012). Negative effects on well-being of activism and volunteerism are associated with role strain and burnout, with a possible strategy of avoiding burnout by celebrating small successes. The same strategy may also foster individual coping resources, while building a sense of empowerment seen among those who participate in activism. Despite the benefits and
| 16
disadvantages of both, volunteerism and activism are important actions affecting happiness, life satisfaction, self-esteem, mastery, and physical health, but also having negative effects as depression (Gilster, 2012).
2.1.2.2. Grassroots leadership Strongly linked to activism and volunteerism, innovations such as grassroots initiatives (GI) are gaining increasing interest from practitioners, policy makers and academia, placing communities as an important space for realizing pro-environmental change (Middlemiss & Parrish, 2009). Throughout history, there has been a clear body of evidence with practical grassroots innovations committed to social justice and environmentally sustainable development. Networks of activists, development workers, community groups and neighbors, have worked with people to generate bottom-up solutions to local situations. These solutions were direct responses to local situations, interests and values of the communities involved, with the communities having control over the processes and the outcomes (Smith et al., 2017). Either born from material or economic necessity or motivated by social issues which are conventionally approached by states and markets, these networks of people promote and coordinate alternative activities, with the ability to discover discourse and mobilize supportive resources, giving a working definition for grassroots leadership (Smith et al., 2017). GI benefit from programs and resources introduced by global summits and agreements. International programs such as the Local Agenda 21 or agendas for innovation (i.e., inclusive innovation, open innovation, social innovation), are supporting grassroots innovation, and are becoming increasingly noticed by states and businesses (Smith et al., 2017). These GI rely on people with limited power, resources, and ability to influence others. People acting from the bottom-up position can change their own actions, seeking to influence others around them and try to change the social structures they inhabit. However, it is worth noting that the idea of social change occurring from GIs is an ideological position widely debated and does not fit comfortably with the worldwide perspectives on how change comes about. Middlemeis and Parish (2019) in their study of the role of GIs in creating sustainable communities, discussed some ideologies regarded in the literature such as radical humanitarian, structural functionalism and radical structuralism, allowing community based change, but mentioning that although this is an ideal type, not everybody agrees on the role of GIs in shaping a sustainable future. Through their study of two initiatives with rather a novel approach, they concluded that although GI are weakly positioned in connection to social change, they could have the potential to enact change based on the social contexts and community capacity (Middlemiss & Parrish, 2009).
2.2. Theoretical framework
To reinforce this study’s aim of understanding sustainability issues, participation, and the individual perspective in conjunction with CGIs, this theoretical framework elaborates on aspects of sustainable development, community engagement, and social capital. Sustainable development is a fundamental principle for facilitating the practical implementation of CGIs, especially when considering the parallels between CGIs and
| 17
sustainable communities. Community engagement and participation can be framed as a theoretical process with tangible implications for CGI leaders, organizers, and participants alike. Social capital exists at the individual level, focusing on the value created through interpersonal relationships, but may also be described as a byproduct of participation. Since community gardening exists at the intersection of these theoretical frameworks, all aspects contribute to an ultimate amalgamation which can be used to assess the research question.
2.2.1. Sustainable development
The Brundtland definition of sustainability and its many variations use an anthropocentric worldview where the “needs” mentioned refer exclusively to human needs and the environment itself is not directly addressed (Thatcher & Yeow, 2016). However, the definition does succeed in addressing an intergenerational time frame. Many iterations of definitions have followed the Brundtland Commission’s in order to further develop the theory and move beyond the human emphasis, including the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach (Elkington, 1997). The TBL approach proposes three aspects or pillars which must be balanced to achieve sustainability: economic, social, and environmental. Though the TBL approach was originally designed from a business perspective with the purpose of harmonizing the traditional financial bottom line with the environmental bottom line, the model is still a valuable and fundamental tool for understanding the balancing act of sustainability. Inspired by Elkington’s three pillars, the overlapping circles model developed the concepts a step further by visually displaying each pillar as interconnected, with sustainability existing at the center of the three balanced forces (see Figure 2; Giddings, Hopwood, & O’Brien, 2002). Figure 2 delineates a popular interpretation of the TBL model composed of three overlapping circles. This model effectively represents the interrelated nature of social, environmental, and economic factors, while also asserting that there is some fundamental difference among the three. Each pillar has its own circle, while also interacting with the others. By identifying areas of overlap, the user can assess which policies will generate a success under what pillar(s). For example, if an organization is concerned about their profit growth and diversity, one can easily pinpoint the overlap in the socio-economic realm, using a specific target policy such as altering their employment process to recruit a diverse, yet qualified workforce. Ideally, an organizational strategy embraces all components of the overlapping circles model and in so doing, operates at the sustainability center of the model.
| 18
Figure 2. The Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach by Elkington (authors’ interpretation) As Elkington (1997) poignantly indicated in his discussion of the TBL, the social pillar of sustainability has been overlooked in the past (p. 70). Luckily, the social dimension has experienced increased recognition recently and it has become evident that social sustainability is vital for sustainable communities (Colantonio & Dixon, 2011). Polese and Stren (2000) provide the following definition for social sustainability:
Development (and/or growth) that is compatible with harmonious evolution of civil society, fostering an environment conducive to the compatible cohabitation of culturally and socially diverse groups while at the same time encouraging social integration, with improvements in the quality of life for all segments of the population (p. 15-16). From an urban development perspective, Polese and Stren (2000) argue that without effective social policy that meets and exceeds the basic human needs of a city (e.g. urban infrastructure, poverty, or health), urban environmental challenges cannot be effectively addressed. In general, social sustainability operates on a micro- and macro-scale, uniting traditional social policy themes and emerging concerns like participation and SC (see Table 2; Colantonio & Dixon, 2011). Some may describe this categorization of traditional and emerging themes as hard versus soft, where hard themes may be more measurable and soft themes more elusive. Even the traditional, hard themes are being analyzed with a more qualitative approach as opposed to reporting a quantitative figure without asking for the story behind it. Table 2. Social sustainability key themes (Colantonio & Dixon, 2011, p. 25)
Traditional Emerging Basic needs, including housing and environmental health Demographic change (aging, migration, and Education and skills mobility) Employment Social mixing and cohesion Equity Identity, sense of place and culture Human rights and gender issues Empowerment, participation, and access Poverty Health and safety Social justice Well-being, happiness, and quality of life
| 19
Sustainable communities The narrative surrounding sustainable development is closely linked to the concept of sustainable cities. Urbanization is the root cause of massive environmental impacts, but at the same time cities serve basic human needs like shelter for more than half of the global population (Colantonio & Dixon, 2011). For a long time, the physical design of the urban form was at the forefront when discussing sustainable cities, as design impacts travel patterns, accessibility, and even social interaction levels (Colantonio & Dixon, 2011). More recently, discussions have shifted from development patterns to encompass urban planning principles and government policies related to economic activity, environmental conditions, and sociocultural vitality. At the same time the scope of research has turned towards community and neighborhood-level analyses, suggesting that these levels are the main opportunity for sustainability advancements especially regarding themes like participation, partnerships, and SC (Colantonio & Dixon, 2011). Although the neighborhood scale is vital for addressing sustainability, the individual perspective connects to education, health, skills, and values. The individual perspective also plays a role in social networks or building relationships towards collective action. Concentrating on local social structures and institutions is necessary to realistically comprehend the day-to-day elements of urban sustainable development, keeping in mind that “people live in real places” (Polese & Stren, 2000, p. 14). This shift towards the local perspective coincides with the fact that cities are growing and diversifying in ways that can be perceived as both positive and negative. Ironically, while basic human needs are being met in most European cities, structural issues like inequality, cultural differences, and political fragmentation are on the rise (Colantonio & Dixon 2011, Polese & Stren, 2000). Reasons like these (e.g. equity, policy, sociocultural issues, etc.) are what make the social aspect of sustainability especially relevant in an urban context. In 2005, inspired by this shift in thinking, the European Commission met in Bristol to define and characterize sustainable communities as:
Places where people want to live and work, now and in the future. They meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents, are sensitive to their environment, and contribute to a high quality of life. They are safe and inclusive, well planned, built and run, and offer equality of opportunity and good services for all (Colantonio & Dixon, 2011, p. 33). Sustainable communities should be able to maintain their resources in a manner that allows for resiliency in preventing and addressing future challenges. Overall, sustainable communities are composed of coexisting individuals, communities, and societies which generally strive to meet the “live, work, and play” components of their chosen development model, all while staying within the physical boundaries of their city and the planetary boundaries of Earth. Community resilience
In recent years, sustainability, resilience, and social innovation have been heavily discussed in the literature. Community resilience (CR) is described as a way of developing models, solutions or prototypes that deals with problems systematically, provided in these conditions, while supporting communities in becoming self-sufficient systems (Horgan &
| 20
Dimitrijević, 2018; Westley, 2013). These methods have also been recently adopted as a method for political ecology and in theories dealing with complex and diverse systems that require quick adaptation and response to change and challenges (Horgan & Dimitrijević, 2018). CR is defined as “a set of adaptive capacities that focus on resource mobilization and facilitate successful adaptation to unpredictable adversities” (Jung, 2017, p. 16). CR is also related to community capacity, defined as “the intersection of human capital, organizational resources, and social capital existing within a given community that can be leveraged to solve collective problems and improve or maintain the well-being of a community” (Magis, 2010, p. 407). Both CR and community capacity resemble through the promotion and utilization of the notion of community resources for the community’s well- being, through collective action and social movement. It differs in the context that community capacity can be virtually anything, whilst CR specially exists within and because of change (Magis, 2010). Similar to other practices such as social innovation and social entrepreneurship, the mechanisms of building community resilience are seen as a complex and dynamic process, where networks and collaboration are necessary. Resilience is not an end state of being, but an adaptive process of growth in situations of high risks, where a strong leadership promoting cohesion and interdependence is a critical component when building resilience (Marques & Dhiman, 2018).
2.2.2. Community engagement and participation
A working definition of community engagement (CE) was noted as:
...the process of working collaboratively with and through groups of people affiliated by geographic proximity, special interest, or similar situations to address issues affecting the wellbeing of those people. It is a powerful vehicle for bringing about environmental and behavioral changes that will improve the health of the community and its members (McCloskey et al., 2011, p. 7). Collaborations, which are seen as a continuation of CE, will encourage greater community involvement over time. While CE is normally achieved in time-bounded projects, long-term partnerships can be born, moving from a traditional focus on a single issue to address a range of social, economic, political, and environmental aspects (McCloskey et al., 2011). Besides creating the opportunity for new partnerships, a report from McCloskey and colleagues (2011) identifies alternative benefits of CE, presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Benefits of community engagement (McCloskey et al., 2011)
Engagement changes the choice and focus of the projects, how they are initiated Agenda and open the opportunity for gaining resources (i.e., funding). New interventions or previously unappreciated causal links can be identified Design and delivery through the community knowledge of local circumstances and helps improve the way projects are implemented. Improvements can be made in the way that research findings can bring about Implementation and change and how these findings contribute to the formation of the long-term change partnerships. Ethics Engagement creates opportunities to improve the consent process, identify ethical
| 21
pitfalls, and create processes for resolving ethical problems. The local knowledge and skills can be enhanced, and their contribution be Public participation recognized, ultimately laying the groundwork for subsequent collaboration. Individual research Improves on how studies are done and makes it easier to participate. participants Linked to social capital, organizations gain enhanced knowledge, higher profile in Community the community, more linkages with community members, and a new organizations organizational capacity. The public is more likely to be receptive to research and gain higher benefits from General public it.
The process of CE is still a relatively new field of study, which despite gaining wide interest in the literature, is scarce in connection to CGs. General underlying practices are suggesting a cross and multidisciplinary approach, including collaboration between public administration, urban planning, public policy making and service delivery (Teig et al., 2009). It is important to mention that the existing body of research on guidelines for designing CE needs to be coupled with practitioners’ expertise, knowledge of the specific contexts, and applied local relevance. Appendix 3 presents some guidelines defined by Teig (2009) to transition from the traditional social science model to a new approach of design science, with the mention that rather than being used as rules or as a step-by-step design template, they should be used interrelatedly and iteratively, in response to specific purposes, contexts and nature of the intervention. Whereas CE depends entirely on community participation, it is worth noting the differences between the two, as their views on the role that citizens in a community should play differ. A key difference is that while CE requires an active and intentional dialogue between the citizens with public decision makers, community participation can solely come from bottom-up, from the citizens only (Lodewijckx, 2019). Community participation extends beyond physical involvement and could include brainstorming for idea generation, contribution to decision making, and responsibilities sharing. Factors motivating people to participate in activities are the desire to play an active role in bettering their own lives, fulfilling social obligations, or feeling a need for a sense of community. Amongst the other benefits, from an SC perspective, community members participate if they perceive they can benefit from the participation and it outweighs the effort required. From this perspective, organizations and individuals are being involved in an “exchange system”, voluntarily sharing resources to meet their goals. In a community gardening setting, struggles like participation, land, materials, and funding are linked to the loss of the CG. Drake and Lawson (2014) reported reasons for garden loss were overwhelmingly attributed to lack of interest by participants, funding loss, or “other reasons. “Garden organizers and managers share the experience of finding and keeping funding, participation, land, and materials”, despite geographical and organizational differences (Drake & Lawson, 2014, p. 252). The necessity of networking is shared among organizations, although these relationships can be both useful and disruptive. Though CGs are built on a foundation of sharing and community-building, cooperation should not be taken for granted. Ultimately, factors such as costs, benefits and risks of participation can
| 22
be sometimes changed through proper planning, collaboration and shared decision making (McCloskey et al., 2011).
2.2.3. Social capital
Social capital (SC) can be defined as the stock of active associations among people bound together by a common interest, such as, “the mutual understanding, shared values and behaviors, and trust that bind members of networks and communities, making cooperative action possible” (Serrat, 2017, p. 868). These associations can exist at multiple scales, for example an individual may have a direct relationship with another individual, or with a collection of individuals. These various scales can also be described as micro-level (individual) and macro-level (organizations, community, society). Firth and colleagues (2011) examine how CGs help build cohesion and vitality in a community, contributing to bonding, bridging, and linking SC. Depending on the type of garden, its governance structures, and links to the local community, different SC types can be used as a resource for public good, or for the benefits of an interest group or an individual (Firth et al., 2011). Similar to other types of capital, SC is not equally available to all, but a commonly used classification that differentiates the aspects of SC includes: ● Bonding SC defines the strong ties between individuals in similar socio-demographic situations, such as immediate family, close friends, or neighbors. ● Bridging SC describes the more distant ties of like people, such as loose friendships and workmates. Bridging SC tends to be outward looking and brings together people from across diverse socio-demographic situations. ● Linking SC concerns connectivity between unlike people in dissimilar situations. It refers to the connection with people in power, such as those in political or financial influential positions (Firth et al., 2011, p. 558). All these aspects of SC are crucial in creating strong communities, along with the number of people participating in a particular network. At the community level, individuals remain connected with one another within the community network, while also connecting with individuals outside the community, generating the opportunity to extend access to resources. Firth and colleagues (2011) exemplify bonding ties with family, friends, and neighbors, acting as a social support safety net, which without the bridging capital, groups become isolated from the rest of the community. Bridging ties must therefore occur in order to increase SC thus providing access to information and opportunities. The linking SC enables members of a community to leverage further a range of locally available resources (Firth et al., 2011).
2.3. Sub-conclusion and theoretical framework
While reviewing the academic literature, the authors remarked the benefits of CGs, the attitudes and behaviors towards sustainability concerns, as well as elements of grassroots leadership. Simultaneously, the literature also stresses the challenges of community gardening to gain and retain participation, and the importance of community engagement.
| 23
Social capital is a unifying concept, met in all dimensions of community gardening, related to the benefits, attitudes, behaviors, engagement, and participation. All of the above are highly contextual and the local aspects are extremely important when defining specific strategies which are context specific. At the same time, despite the fact that previous research indicates that CGs support community cohesion, strengthen the aspects of ownership and pride of individuals towards their neighborhood, provide environmental services, and offer some economic value, the relationship between the attitudes and behaviors towards sustainability concerns and participation in CGIs remains unclear. The authors began the study by reviewing the general conceptualization of CGs, and their development over time. Subsequently, the study continued with the benefits of CG and the element of leadership associated with the grassroots initiatives for community development. Ultimately, the study looked into key theoretical components associated with sustainable development, like community engagement, participation, and social capital. The study will then move into the empirical findings, with the main focus on understanding the relationship between the attitudes and behaviors towards the social and environmental aspects of sustainability in community gardening initiatives and individual residents’ resistance or support. Thus, the authors created a theoretical framework (see Figure 3) based on the literature findings and the aim of the paper, supporting the analysis of the findings in relation to the case from Sydhavn’s waterfront and CG.
Figure 3. Theoretical model for analyzing community gardening initiatives and participation (Authors’ interpretation) The model comprises the four key elements discussed in the literature study of social capital, community engagement and participation, grassroots leadership, and attitudes and behaviors, interconnected by community gardening. The interconnectedness and dynamism of these components can be noted, while sustainability represents an overarching theme. Although not explicitly referred to in community gardening, sustainability connects through the long-term perspective of the impacts and possibilities, enhances the local capacity and considerations of the human needs as the center of interest.
| 24
3. Methodology and Methods
This chapter outlines and justifies the research design, methodology, and methods for data collection and analysis used in the study. Following this, the object of study describes the context of the study area as well as describes personal communications which were used to familiarize the researchers with the nuances of the area’s design, history, and usage of community gardening.
3.1. Research design
The research is conducted through a quantitative method with an exploratory purpose, where the study is used as a medium to identify key issues, which can be the focus for further research. According to Bryman (2012), a quantitative method aims at testing the theory, a suitable method when the researcher needs to collect data for a specific case at a specific point in time. Exploratory research is defined as “a methodological approach that is primarily concerned with discovery and with generating or building theory” (Jupp, 2006, p. 111). This research is based on a deductive approach, where a particular domain of interest and theoretical considerations are subject to empirical scrutiny (Bryman, 2012). According to Bryman (2012), a quantitative method aims at testing the theory, which is a suitable method when the researcher needs to collect data for a specific case at a specific point in time. An exploratory purpose is an approach where the researcher’s curiosity is satisfied by looking more in detail at what is understood by the situation (Bellamy, 2012). The study is comprised of both primary and secondary data. Bryman (2012) discusses the primary data as referring to the information collected in connection with a specific purpose for a study, where the researchers are responsible for collecting and analyzing the data. Furthermore, secondary data is illustrated through previously published research, which occurs when someone else analyzes such data, with the researchers being able to explore the research questions a paper, without having to go through the lengthy and time- consuming process of collecting primary data (Bryman, 2012). The primary data collection is based on a quantitative method (Bryman, 2012). The investigation begins with the with a description of the case in the Object of study section. The data is collected based on analysis of the content of local and development plans, digital archive documentation, and other academic papers written on the subject, with the goal of understanding the selected case in depth. The uniqueness of Sydhavn and its special characteristics, history of the recent times and solutions proposed for the problems of the area, are viewed from a two-layered viewpoint: an organizational (the CG organizing group and municipality) and individual (community of citizens). Some initial discussions from the bottom-up perspective are presented in the Informal communication section. By employing this kind of approach, the authors are able to understand the entire context of the case, and further propose constructive recommendations. The research ultimately focuses on the individual perspective of the citizens, based on a survey questionnaire with a non-probability convenience sampling. Due to limitations in time and physical interaction (e.g., global circumstances of the pandemic and cross-border lockdown), the data collection will be organized in a digital form. The survey questionnaire aims at making
| 25
inferences about a sample population at a specific point in time, which without a set study case, it would be nearly impossible in a study like this to generate findings concerning the specific community from Sydhavn, without referencing the special characteristics and historical context of the area (Lavrakas, 2008; Bryman, 2012). Ultimately, the survey data will be processed, with variables coded into sets of measures and tested for statistical associations as well as descriptive frequencies using SPSS, a computer software for quantitative data analysis (Bryman, 2012). While designing the survey, the researchers were aware of the analyses techniques to be undertaken once the data have been collected and of the possible challenges that might affect the study, limitations further described in the discussion section. The statistics are analyzed and interpreted, with results presented in the analysis section, allowing the authors to finally respond and consider the implications of the findings on the research questions and overall research aim, concluding with general discussions and recommendations for future research and for academics, community gardening organizers and built environment practitioners.
3.1.1. Methods for data collection
This thesis uses a quantitative method approach to respond to the purpose and research questions of this paper, composed of a survey questionnaire. According to Naoum (2013), quantitative research is about “an inquiry into a social or human problem, based on testing a hypothesis or a theory composed of variables, measured with numbers and analyzed with statistical procedures in order to determine whether the hypothesis or the theory holds true” (p. 39). The survey questionnaire was chosen by the authors as they wanted to collect a large number of measurable data, which will enable them to gather information and gain an understanding about the beliefs, attitudes and behaviors of the sample population regarding community gardening participation. Concerning the sample population, the authors decided to include all four neighborhoods of Sydhavn’s waterfront (Sluseholmen, Teglholmen, Frederiks Brygge, Enghave Brygge), rather than only focusing on Teglholmen and Sluseholmen2. The sample size was calculated based on socio demographic data from Copenhagen Statistics Center, with a total population number of residents aged 18 or older being 28,878. Based on Cochran’s sample size formula, the sample size was calculated with a 95% level of confidence and 10% confidence interval, resulting in a minimum sample size of 96 respondents. A non- probability convenience sampling method was used, involving a selection process that allows the researchers access to a wider range of the population (Bryman, 2012). The questionnaire was published digitally on five different Facebook groups of residents living in the area, with an estimated number of around 10,000 members, but with a large possibility that the groups include duplicate memberships. To increase the response rate,
2 The other two neighborhoods are emerging areas, and as the constructions are still undergoing, the authors believed that the dynamism of the area will allow inclusivity and would possibly support future project extensions. Appendix 5 shows the new planning and ambitions for these areas and their green space distribution.
| 26
the authors approached different strategies such as organizing a separate prize raffle form, connecting with possible respondents, and publishing the questionnaires on the authors’ personal profiles. Furthermore, the survey questionnaire was developed in two versions, English and Danish, seeking inclusivity for all participants with a preferred proficiency for the Danish language. For the survey design, the authors used Qualtrics as a software tool and tried to design the survey so that the respondents feel connected with the subject of the project, using a picture with the area taken by the authors. Appendix 8 illustrates the final configuration of the survey. Before the survey was made public and sent for completion, the questionnaire was validated by a researcher and a resident from the sample population to assure the accuracy and clearance of the survey. The data analysis procedure is detailed in the Methods for data analysis section. Aside from the main methods of data collection, the authors also discussed ‘off the record’ with the project initiator of the community gardening project from Sydhavn and some residents from the sample population. While these discussions are summarized in the previous section, they do not directly address the empirical data, but contribute to the wider understanding of the specific context of Sydhavn. Furthermore, secondary data from the Copenhagen Economic Office was used to generate descriptive sociodemographic maps to compare and contrast the characteristics of Sydhavn’s different areas.
3.1.2. Measures for data analysis
In order to provide a clear distinction of the questions and their objective, while avoiding inappropriately formatted questions, various question types were employed. According to Bryman (2012) there are generally more than one type of question asked in an online survey questionnaire, with factual, informational, behavioral, or attitudinal questions being especially appropriate for this study, in accordance with the research questions and aim. An introduction was included in the survey, presenting authors’ background, the thesis topic, focus, aim and ambitions, while informing about confidentiality and duration of the survey. General definitions of community gardening and relevant examples have been provided so that respondents would have no doubt in relation to the meaning of the term. Questions asked in the first part of the survey aimed at narrowing down the sample population, based on their consent to participate and their residence in one of the four neighborhoods part of this study. The questions in the second part were asked to identify respondents’ attitudes towards general sustainability principles, attitudes, and behaviors. The third part aimed at narrowing the sample group based on their neighborhood of residence and perceived need of a possible initiative. Once a neighborhood was selected, all the following questions were connected to the selection, helping the respondent better understand the questions and create consistency. In the fourth part of the survey, the question regarding the need and participation potential in a CGI was addressed. The general measures of the survey are detailed below, and a complete list comprising all parts and questions distribution is listed in Appendix 7. By conducting the quantitative online survey, the authors intended to understand the relationship between the attitudes and behaviors towards the social and environmental aspects of sustainability in CGIs and
| 27
individual citizens’ resistance or support, focusing on the four waterfront neighborhoods from Sydhavn. Sustainability and community gardening familiarity. How individuals understand and interpret aspects from the external world, while translating them into actions was of high importance for this study. While measuring sustainability concerns can be quite difficult, this question measures familiarity, with a Likert Scale from not at all familiar (1) to extremely familiar (5), with variables such as sustainability (social, environmental, economic), community and urban gardening, and reduce, reuse, recycle. Sustainability attitudes and behaviors. Connected to the previous question, sustainability attitudes and behaviors are measured through expressing agreement with a set of 9 statements and a Likert Scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), containing variables such as eco-conscious lifestyle, conscious consumption, and green space areas (see Appendix 5). Need and awareness about community gardening. Once identifying their specific neighborhood of residence, two dichotomous questions with a yes and no response, measure individuals’ perception and understanding of their area in relation to the need for more green amenities. Attitude towards community gardening. Alternatively, this question assesses attitudes towards a possible gardening initiative in the respondents’ specific area, through a Likert Scale question ranging from very bad idea (1) to very good idea (5). Participation interest. Assessing the interest in participation and potential in a community gardening initiative is crucial for this study. The question is based on a dichotomous measure, with a yes or no response. The objective is two-fold: 1) to identify the willingness to participate in a gardening program, and 2) to further identify reasons for participation and possible encouragement strategies. Depending on which option is selected, the respondent is redirected to a customized question flow. No participation and encouragement. The respondents with no interest in participating in a community gardening initiative are given two multiple choice questions measuring the reasoning behind no, interest in participation with variables such as “I already have a garden”, I am happy with how my neighborhood looks like”, or I don’t have time to garden”, followed by possible encouragement strategies, with variables such as “inclusivity in the decision-making process”, “training or workshops about gardening”, “more advertisement”, “language translations of the project”. Once these questions were completed, respondents were transferred to the last part containing demographic questions. Reasons for participation. For the respondents willing to participate in a community gardening initiative, a 10-item multiple-response question addressing some community gardening benefits in relation to community resilience, social ties, and ownership and pride were addressed. Plant preference. Related to Reasons for participation, based on the literature, the authors expected that interest in specific kinds of plants might influence the way community
| 28
gardening is perceived and acted upon. The question is a 7-item multiple-response question containing variables such as fruits, vegetables, or decorative flowers. Space and social ties. The kind of preferred space connects to the literature on SC, of bonding, bridging, and linking SC. The authors expected a strong connection between the kind of space the respondents are interested in and community gardening, assessed through a 5-item multiple-response question. Participation type and time. Regarding participation, as the literature presents the issues of participation as crucial for successful community gardening initiatives, the authors expected a relation between the possible time allocated for gardening and type of participation, measured through variables that relate to volunteering, leadership, and support. The type of participation is measured through a 5-item multiple-response question, while the time for participation is measured through a 5-item simple question.
3.1.3. Methods for data analysis
The research questions are examined by analyzing associations among survey response variables (as described in Measures for data analysis) using bivariate descriptive statistics and analyzing frequencies using univariate descriptive statistics where bivariate methods are not appropriate or possible. Associations are tested in pairs, where variables which jointly provide greater insights are coupled together. Fisher’s Exact Test is a statistical significance test used in the analysis of cross tabulations (also known as contingency tables) for categorical variables to determine whether an association exists between variables. Fisher’s Exact Test is an appropriate alternative to the Chi-Square Test when over 20% of expected cell counts are less than 5 (Kim, 2017, p. 154). The null hypothesis for a Fisher’s Exact Test is there is no statistically significant association between the two variables (Kim, 2018, p. 153). Note that in the discussion of the results, this null hypothesis is rejected at p-values below .10, recognizing that p-values below .05 are preferred. While Fisher’s Exact Test helps determine whether an association between variables exists, Cramer’s V is a correlation coefficient that estimates the strength of association, especially appropriate for tables larger than two rows by two columns (Kim, 2017, p. 153). In the discussion of Cramer’s V, values above 0.25 are interpreted as very strong according to Akoglu (2018). Since the variables in our study are mostly categorical, often have estimated cell counts below five, and often have more than two rows/columns of categories, Fisher’s Exact Test and Cramer’s V are the most suitable for estimating presence and strength of an association between variables. Univariate descriptive statistics are analyzed using frequency tables or bar graphs.
3.1.4. Reliability, Replicability, and Validity
Reliability, replicability, and validity are conceptual evaluation measures. Reliability relates mostly to repeatability and consists of stability, internal reliability, and inter-observer consistency (Bryman, 2012). Stability refers to whether the results of a measure will fluctuate over time. Stability may not be a central focus of this research paper because it studies a specific community at the current point in time, but once a similar approach is undertaken, one needs to be aware of the current developments affecting the area.
| 29
Internal reliability asks if the scale among questions is consistent, the indicators are coherent and relate to the same thing. Internal reliability is utilized as a valuable effectiveness measure during the questionnaire design. Inter-observer consistency relates to subjective interpretation of data by different observers. The participants of the sample population combat inter-observer consistency by the self-administrated survey. Furthermore, the results will be analyzed using descriptive statistical methods which are generally objective. Only interpretations of existing literature and the final analysis of the survey results are subject to observer bias. Both researchers communicate to agree on the interpretations in order to minimize inter-observer consistency issues. Replicability is an effectiveness measure regarding whether a study can follow the same procedure and achieve the same results if carried out by a different group of researchers. In short, can the study be accurately repeated? In general, cross-sectional quantitative research designs outline the procedures for selecting participants, designing concept measures, administering surveys, and analyzing data, which the authors described in- depth in the primary data collection section (Bryman, 2012). Consequently, it should be straightforward to replicate the online survey and overall study. Validity involves whether the method and results of the research accurately address the research question. There are numerous subtopics one can use to evaluate validity, some that are more relevant for research studies including internal, external, and ecological validity. Internal validity is about establishing causality among variables. This paper does not make claims regarding causality. External validity involves whether the results of a specific study can be generalized beyond the research context (Bryman, 2012). Again, this paper does not intend to make generalized assumptions about other populations, it solely focuses on the situation of the chosen case. Also, the survey sampling method is not random, which jeopardizes external validity. Once the survey questionnaire has been designed and before making it public, the questionnaire is to be sent to a researcher and a resident of the study area to validate and assure the accuracy and clearance of the survey, procedure further described in the Primary data collection section.
3.2. Object of study
This section describes the study area (Sydhavn and its waterfront) based on historical, cultural, architectural, and personal accounts. Describing the study area in detail helps to realistically communicate the context. A brief secondary data analysis also outlines the demographic characteristics of Sydhavn’s different neighborhoods.
3.2.1. Historical and cultural context Industrial legacy Sydhavn has a rich industrial and shipping history which has shaped the physical and demographic characteristics of the area. The first port facilities emerged in the 1870s around what is currently known as Teglholmen, where brick and calcium factories were located. As industrial success grew, the Copenhagen Port Authority assumed responsibility for the area in 1916 and developed a more formal port area (KELA, 2020). Over the years, the workers cooperative building association built 17 housing units for the working class,
| 30
who left the inner city for more light, airy, spacious, and affordable apartments near the Sydhavn industries. Garden associations emerged as local workers wanted to supplement their households with their own crops as well as build modest summer homes. Many of these intended summer homes have become occupied full-time as housing shortages arose (KELA, 2020). Around this same time, substantial infrastructure changes brought about main roads, housing, railroads, and even created new land.
Figure 4. Satellite capture of the historical development of Sydhavn’s waterfront area (Københavnerkortet, n.d.) Around 1920, the Copenhagen Port Authority decided to build an artificial island in the harbor waters to further expand the port’s capacity (KELA, 2020). The island was named Teglholmen, meaning Brick Isle, after the area’s popular brick factory. This is not the only artificial land in the area, in fact, almost all of Sydhavn’s waterfront is land fill (see Figure 4). Enghave Brygge (the northern land mass in Figure 3) was built on the water in the early 1900s to create a wharf for receiving coal shipments to industrial warehouses. The most recent area to be filled is Sluseholmen, named after the sluice gates in the dam nearby, which was filled in the 1940s (the dam is visible in the 1929 image on Figure 4; KELA, 2020). The area grew steadily until about 1960 when it reached a peak population of over 25,000 and housing in the area was extremely desirable (Københavns Kommune, 2008). Subsequently, preferences changed, and the once-popular, compact two-bedroom apartments were no longer enough for families, who instead opted for more spacious suburban living. As families with children dissipated and an economic downturn forced working-class jobs away, the elderly, single residents, or socially disadvantaged migrants from other parts of the city replaced them (Københavns Kommune, 2008). By the 1980s, the population had dropped below 15,000 and the vivacious neighborhoods of the 1960s became a memory (Københavns Kommune, 2008). Transition to today In general, the industrial and manufacturing jobs that had dominated Sydhavn’s waterfront and persevered through world wars, ultimately declined, and vanished by the 1980s.
| 31
Beginning in the 1990s, the area experienced a revival of jobs with white-collar tech industries like Nokia replacing old blue-collar factories (Københavns Kommune, 2013). However, few of these office workers reside in Sydhavn. As the City of Copenhagen teetered on the edge of bankruptcy, the Danish government decided in 1999 that planning policy should focus on housing creation “for all” as and attracting investment back to the city, especially in former industrial or harbor areas facing decline (Hansen, 2015; Københavns Kommune, 2013, p. 11). Since this political decision was made, Sydhavn’s waterfront has arguably become one of Copenhagen’s fastest-developing districts. Construction has been ongoing since the early 2000s, with plans for almost 7,000 new residential units on the waterfront by 2025 (Københavns Kommune, 2013). While the new developments are architecturally pleasing, there have been criticisms regarding the incorporation of green space as well as the demographic mix of new residents compared to old residents (Hansen, 2015). Sydhavn’s cultural heritage It should be noted that Copenhagen’s municipal district name for the entire Sydhavn study area is legally referred to as Kongens Enghave, meaning King’s Meadow. One local writes, “‘My Old Sydhavn’, which encompasses quays, boating associations, the fishing harbor, and Tippen nature area, is now called Kongens Enghave, while the ‘official Sydhavn’ today is only the land filled waterfront areas and two strange isles” (Arnt, 2018, p. 18). For simplicity, the neighborhood configuration defined by Kongens Enghave Local Committee (KEL) is described in this section. KEL (2017) identifies three general neighborhoods: Old Sydhavn, Beacon Hill (translated from Bavnehøj), and The Isles3 (translated from Holmene). Old Sydhavn has been considered a disadvantaged community by Copenhagen municipality due to underperforming in certain socioeconomic indicators such as unemployment, low education, low income, etc. (see Table 4). Table 4. Socioeconomic data comparison of Sydhavn (Københavns Kommune, 2015a, p. 10) Units Socioeconomic No Currently Low Public Single Unemployment Under Indicators education studying Income Housing (no children) 60m2
Sydhavn Renewal Area 8.8 % 32% 18.9 % 40.2% 48% 53% 70.6 %
Tegl- and Sluseholmen 2.9 % 15.8 % 13.7 % 21.7 % 0.4 % 7% 44.9%
Copenhagen Average 5.9 % 21.3 % 22.7 % 30.6 % 30.2 % 20.1% 64.2 %
Figure 5 illustrates these socioeconomic indicators, reflecting that the residents of The Isles are generally highly educated, employed, and more likely to have children compared to Old Sydhavn. Kongens Enghave’s Local Plan states that The Isles has no history and its contributions to the area include “bathing, ferries, architecture, and waterfronts”, while Old Sydhavn offers
3 Figure 5 labels The Isles area as Sydhavn since Copenhagen Economic Office has named the “roder” administrative divisions in this way. Note that in the paper, Sydhavn refers to the entire general area while Sydhavn’s waterfront refers to the new construction area (i.e., The Isles).
| 32
“green space, bicycle and pedestrian paths, cultural institutions, and tradition” (KEL, 2017, p. 20-21).
Figure 5. Mapping representation with the socioeconomic indicators of The Isles. Authors’ interpretation of data provided by the Copenhagen Economic Office (2020).
| 33
The fishing harbor4 which is rich in cultural history, supports some of the last remaining fishermen in Copenhagen, as well as recreational sailing clubs (KEL, 2020, p. 28). The land developer’s lease to the harbor will expire in 2020 and preserving the traditional environment from development is a priority (KEL, 2017, p 29). Protecting the Tippen nature area from new construction, also owned by the land developer, was voted the top priority by all residents, old and new alike (KEL, 2020, p. 30). The local committee notes the uneven distribution of cultural resources, especially for families with children in The Isles (KEL, 2020, p. 39). This is the only explicit commentary on the disparity in culture among the area's neighborhoods made in the local plan. Local artists from Old Sydhavn are not shy to depict their feelings (see Figure 6).
Figure 6. Art shared to a Sydhavn locals Facebook group, reading, “The footsteps of capital through Copenhagen,” as a businessman’s shoes crush trees and leave buildings behind (Vellet, 2020).
3.2.2. Situation appraisal
Once the researchers decided to focus on Sydhavn’s waterfront, where a CGI was being established, it became clear that more practical understanding of the context and the project was needed. Since the CGI from Sluseholmen emerged from informal communication with people within the authors' network, the authors managed to obtain project specific information and contacts of the CGI team. To introduce the project, it was initiated by a group of residents from Sluseholmen and Teglholmen, who lived in the area since the beginning of 2000s, when the area began its development. Although they love living in the neighborhood and being part of the new community, the feeling of missing green space is permanently present. They believe that “living in the city does not mean that one should forget about nature and the green surroundings” (Project Initiator, personal communication, March 6th, 2020). Furthermore, it is considered that the built environment does not fulfill their need of having more access to green space, besides offering a stunning view, modernist buildings, and access to the harbor waterfront area (Resident 2, digital communication, March 22nd, 2020). Therefore, they believe that the
4 Fiskerihavnen in Danish.
| 34
area should have higher ambitions with their green surroundings, which could hopefully inspire the City of Copenhagen’s ambitions. The project was divided into separate phases, with a main phase clearly defined, and following phases to be decided once the first phase is completed. Phase 1 was based on the following criteria: ● Protection against sun and wind ● Location in relation to the traffic ● Are the plants located downhill and frequently visited by humans? ● Are trucks and the like often driven in the area? ● Is the area exposed to dogs, other animals, litter, etc.? ● Is the soil appropriate to work with, or solely construction gravel, etc.? These criteria were the guiding principles in defining the interventions for the plantings, as well as alternative prevention strategies to protect the planted areas from people, cars, and animals. At the same time, the project aims at taking inspiration from other initiatives that proved to be successful, both from Denmark and abroad, then translating these ideas to the specific context of the area and ambitions of the project. These ideas and inspirations are further illustrated in Appendix 4. To convince themselves of the authenticity of the project and to understand the area, the authors organized on the 6th of March 2020 a meeting with the project initiator. Due to a confidentiality agreement, the identity of the person cannot be disclosed, and a summary of the conversation is presented in the informal communication section. A meeting agenda was provided, and subsequently, time was allocated for the authors to tour the area and draw their own observations. Luckily, a local resident knowing about the project and authors’ aims, offered to show the area and discuss how the area developed over time from his experience. To better illustrate the observations, the following sections are extracts from the local plan, which include the strategic development of Sydhavn’s waterfront area, and photographic observations conducted by the authors. Architectural configuration
Figure 7. Views from Sluseholmen with some buildings and the canal (Authors’ photograph, 2020)
| 35
The overall development of the area was a common effort of both Danish and Dutch architects. The project was inspired by the former industrial and port heritage of the area, as well as other existing urban spaces in Copenhagen, like Christianshavn and Frederiksstaden, and internationally renowned developments (Københavns Kommune, 1999). The Dutch architecture of the Java-island and Borneo-island from Amsterdam inspired the main architectural expression. It aims at providing coherent infrastructural facilities, mixed-use amenities with integrated housing and service areas, as well as recreational opportunities with green spaces, harbor promenades, basins, bridges, and water spaces defined as common facilities (Københavns Kommune, 1999). The development plan is built around the canals, connecting all surrounding areas, with residents being able to experience the canals from all sides, both from the comfort of their homes and when traveling on land. Each housing unit is divided into individual buildings, where each building has its own contemporary architectural expression, with variation in height. As the project was advancing and different phases were completed, additional strategies have been defined in order to retain a high built quality and maintain harmony and consistency between the existing urban areas and the new development, including additional interventions for the basin areas, recreational and green spaces (Københavns Kommune, 2009). Building courtyards
Figure 8. Views from the interior courtyards (Authors’ photograph, 2020) The area is characterized by a strict division between the public and private amenities for each individual building, which include green areas, canals, promenades, and green private courtyards. According to the Local Plan (3, 8, 11), the courtyards should be landscaped with a mixture of hard coated areas, grass, and other vegetation. Moreover, trees and grass must be planted in each courtyard, allowing them to grow while offering shelter for the residents and creating space to develop future activities, whilst also regulating the noise (Københavns Kommune, 2009). Surrounding the courtyards, urban furniture, terraces, small playhouses, and plant beds allowing for cultivation, are integrated in the semi-private areas and are to be exclusively reserved for the residents of the building. Additionally, the courtyards are designed to provide attractive facilities for children to play, with consideration for all age groups (Københavns Kommune, 2009).
| 36
Streets and surroundings
Figure 9. Views of the streets and surrounding areas (Authors’ photograph, 2020) Transitioning from the former industrial legacy to the new residential development entails significant consumption of resources such as building materials, soil, and a need for transportation facilities, consequently causing noise, dust and increased air pollution. Building over 135,000 m2 of housing, businesses and institutions, underground parking, as well as excavations for canals, retrofitting and building new infrastructure facilities, lead to significant changes in the new environment, resulting in a new neighborhood, which will in itself result in increased consumption of energy and resources in the form of electricity, heat and water (Københavns Kommune, 1999). Therefore, the local plan and new development strategies should meet not only the needs of the future residents, but also the long-term impacts and consequences. From a wider perspective and in relation to the municipality as a whole, assessing these impacts and finding solutions that would lead to a zero impact would generate increasing complexity, accounting for the need for expansion and growing housing demand. The Local Plan 310 (1999) implies that future interventions must be in place to meet those demands. Figure 10 presents a zoning distribution of the area, connected to Appendix 5 with extracts from the local plan regarding the green configuration of the different segments of the area.
| 37
Figure 10. Sydhavn’s map with zoning according to the Local plan 310 and 494 (see Appendix 4 for additional information). Authors’ interpretation of files provided by Open Data DK (2020).
| 38
3.2.3. Informal communication
Although this paper is based on a quantitative method, the researchers found the informal communication with the residents of the area as being valuable, further discussed in this section. However, these aspects are not part of the empirical findings, but contribute to a wider understanding of the context. Table 5 displays how the communication took place and the aspects discussed.
Table 5. Overview of the informal communication
# Position Mean Relevance Date 1 Project initiator Personal communication Project and location March 6th 2020 2 Resident 1 Personal communication Local configuration March 6th 2020 3 Resident 2 Digital communication Project idea April 22nd 2020
To further discuss the findings, as mentioned in the situation appraisal, a meeting with the project initiator of the CG from Sydhavn was arranged on March 6, 2020. As there is no recording of the conversation, the discussion is only mentioned in the following paragraph, retrieved from authors notes and observations. Through this meeting, the authors wanted to get a better overview of the personal motivations for starting the community gardening project, as well as the barriers faced in their process of implementation. Prior to the meeting, an agenda was created and sent in advance to the project initiator, presenting the topics of discussion and assuring the legitimacy of the study and anonymity.
The discussion began with a short presentation of the researchers and the object of study, as well as the personal interests and motivations connected to the project. The conversation then moved on to discuss the efforts and motivations for the initiative. Although initially started from an idea that people should feel a sense of ownership, stewardship and awareness for their community, and the hope of creating a wider community for the whole area, the initiator noted that the pressures coming from the bottom-up are too fast-moving, with the local government not being able to respond quickly enough to the growing needs. Additionally, the motivation of establishing the initiative was coupled with the experience of living in the area since the first buildings were constructed, and an intrinsic concern for sustainability matters and the circular economy. The first activity of the initiative was based on cleaning the canal area, which was successfully completed. Subsequently, the project changed its direction adding the “green” aspects, with the project team growing to three members, organizing, and managing activities like cleaning, planting, digital advertising, crowdfunding, and communication with external stakeholders. However, it was noted by the authors that the project does not have an agreed common set of goals, mission, and vision for the initiative. When asked what would the ideal vision of the project would be, the project initiator pointed towards “more people engaging and prioritizing the beauty of the neighborhood, Sluseholmen becoming the first part of Copenhagen changing its green infrastructure through the local and organic influence, with plants on the sidewalks, streets, bridges, vertical planting, increased biodiversity and green space for playing” (Project initiator, personal communication, March 6th, 2020).
| 39
Onwards, the conversation was followed by the tour in the neighborhood and discussion about the area, which gave valuable insight in framing the research direction, as well as formed an understanding of the differences and complexities existent. Besides discussing the architectural configuration and facilities of the area, important notes have been made regarding the community building and activities of the residents. Other remarks were made regarding the old, but more organically grown communities situated on the east side of the harbor, which benefit of more green and access to recreational space, as opposed to the new built area seen as more robust and strictly organized (Resident 1, digital communication, March 6th 2020) One final comment received from a second resident from the authors' network, described as follows:
As myself living here, I completely feel them [project initiators]! Like for example, my flatmates always brag of how beautiful the view we have on the water channel is under our balcony, and all our guests are having a WOW reaction to it… but I feel miserable here, I feel like in a concrete cage, surrounded by some green-blueish water… missing green, trees, spaces… and we do live in a better corner. It is ‘super-modern’, but lacking coziness, soul, life. It is definitely a place to be, but not to live (Resident 2, personal communication, April 22nd, 2020).
| 40
4. Analysis
This chapter presents the characteristics of the sample, quantitative online survey results, and analysis. The possible limitations of the study are also considered, followed by recommendations for the audience of the study (e.g., academics, practitioners, CG organizers, etc.).
4.1. Sample
The survey data was collected digitally from the 2nd to 13th of May 2020. A total of 200 individuals have clicked the link of the survey, while only 131 being registered, based on their residence in the area and full survey completion, with a response rate of 65,5%. From a general overview of the collected data, women of ages 18-29, and highly educated individuals (above undergraduate studies) were overrepresented in the sample. The average respondent has lived in the area 1-3 years. An overview of the raw survey data is presented in Appendix 6, and general demographic results presented in Figure 11.
Figure 11. Survey data demographics
| 41
4.2. Results
Main research question: How do individuals’ attitudes and behaviors towards sustainability concerns promote or hinder participation in community gardening initiatives? This question is partially assessed by reviewing previous literature, but insight from the associations among survey responses using Fisher’s Exact test and the Cramer’s V correlation coefficient is also valuable. To explore whether the respondents’ Sustainability and community gardening familiarity is associated with sustainability attitudes and behaviors, these measures were cross tabulated (see Table 6).
Table 6. Sustainability attitudes and behaviors vs. Sustainability and community gardening familiarity
When comparing respondent’s Sustainability and community gardening familiarity to Sustainability attitudes and behaviors, all but two Fisher’s Exact Tests are statistically significant and based on all Cramer’s V values above 0.25, there is a very strong association between the two variables. Therefore, it can be established that Sustainability and community gardening familiarity is strongly related to Sustainable attitudes and behaviors. When cross tabulating the measures Sustainability and community gardening familiarity with Participation interest all measures have a statistically significant Fisher’s Exact Test p- value as well as Cramer’s V values, leading to a rejection of the null hypothesis for no association between variables. However, when considering the individual tests, “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” and “Community and Urban Gardening” have Cramer’s V values below 0.25, which indicates a strong5 association as opposed to very strong for “Sustainability”
5 Values between 0.15 and 0.24 are interpreted as “strong” according to Akoglu (2018, p. 92).
| 42
(see Table 7). Nevertheless, there is a statistically significant association between the measures Sustainability and community gardening familiarity and Participation interest.
Table 7. Sustainability attitudes and behaviors vs. Participation interest
Sub-question I: In the study population, what are the individual attitudes and behaviors towards community gardening initiatives?
Table 8. Need and awareness vs. Attitudes towards community gardening
This question can be assessed by the Need and awareness about community gardening and Attitude towards community gardening measures. Only about one-fifth of respondents feel there are enough plants, trees, and public green spaces in their specific neighborhood, while 90% (n=118) of respondents feel good or very good about the idea of a CG in their specific neighborhood. Interestingly, although most respondents feel there are not enough green spaces and feel community gardening is a good idea, about 65% (n=85)
| 43
of people are not aware of any gardening initiatives in their area. To determine whether there is a statistically significant association between the measures Need and awareness about community gardening, Sustainability and community gardening familiarity, Sustainability attitudes and behaviors, and Attitude towards community gardening a cross tabulation was performed (see Table 8). For Need and awareness about community gardening, Fisher’s Exact Test p-values are significant with Cramer’s V values above 0.25, therefore we can assume there is a statistically significant, strong association among the metrics. For Sustainability and community gardening familiarity, no variables are statistically significant, therefore it fails to reject the null hypothesis of no association and there is no association among the variables. For Sustainability attitudes and behaviors, only some variables return a statistically significant p-value for both Fisher’s Exact Test and Cramer’s V. Three of these variables relate to green spaces. Therefore, while we cannot conclude that there is a statistically significant association among all Sustainability attitudes and behaviors variables, those variables relating to green space are very strongly associated with Attitudes towards community gardening (due to Cramer’s V above 0.25). Sub-question II: In the study population, why do individuals refrain or not from engaging in community gardening initiatives? Figure 12. Participation interest
To determine why some residents would be willing to participate in community gardening or not, two variations of multiple-response questions6 were offered allowing respondents to select all options that applied. Since a majority (n=112) indicated they would be interested in gardening, the number of responses for why someone would be interested outweighs the number of responses for those that would not (n=19). Figure 12 illustrates the frequencies interest in participating in community gardening, by neighborhood.
6 Multiple-response questions are not appropriate for statistical tests of association due to the complex answer choice configurations; therefore, frequency tables are used for this question type.
| 44
Figure 13. Knowledge of any community gardening
In relation to the question of the knowledge of any CGs, a majority of respondents from Sluseholmen responded "yes”, whilst for the other three neighborhoods the response was mainly “no” (see Figure 13).
Figure 14. Reasons for interest in participating in community gardening Individuals who indicated they would be interested in community gardening were redirected to questions measuring Reasons for participation. Figure 14 summarizes reasons for their indicated interest. “Add more green to my neighborhood/area” (n=94), “Make my neighborhood more attractive” (n=75), and “Recreation/enjoyment” (n=69) were the most popular reasons for being interested in community gardening. The remaining
| 45
options received moderate selections as well, except for “Learn more about my neighborhood/area” (n=16) which received the least.
Figure 15. Reasons for lack of interest in participating in community gardening Those who would not be interested in community gardening were redirected to a different set of questions to understand why not. These individuals reported “I do not enjoy gardening” (n=10), “I do not have enough time to garden” (n=10), and “I do not know how to grow plants” (n=9) as the most frequent reasons for their disinterest (see Figure 15). “I cannot afford additional expenses” (n=6) and “Other” (n=6) also received moderate selections. The “Other” choice included colorful commentary including concerns that a garden area will become a dog toilet, or the statement “If I wanted a garden, I would move to a house”. Sub-question III: In the study population, what would encourage individual citizen’s participation in community gardening initiatives?
Figure 16. What would encourage respondents to participate in community gardening A multiple-response question was given to respondents indicating no interest in participation in community gardening to determine what might encourage them to do so. Figure 16 displays the choice frequencies. Almost all respondents selected the “Other” option (n=15). 13 of the “Other” respondents listed that “nothing” would encourage them to
| 46
participate in community gardening. One “Other” respondent elaborated that rooftop gardening would encourage them, while another added that guaranteed project participation and a project timeline would be encouraging.
Sub-question IV: In the study population, how would willing individuals prefer to participate in community gardening initiatives?
Figure 17. Types of plants respondents are interested in growing Individuals who indicated they would be interested in participating in community gardening in their area were redirected to measures of Plant preference, Space and social ties, and Participation type and time. There is no obvious favorite regarding the preferred plant type, as all edible options and flowers received over 60 selections (see Figure 17). Decorative plants (n=47) received somewhat fewer responses, which is interesting when considering “Make my neighborhood more attractive” was a top choice under the Reasons for participation measure. A smaller number of individuals selected “Other” (n=10) as a plant choice, with comments including bushes, trees, and biodiversity-boosting plants to benefit bees/insects.
Figure 18. What kind of space respondents would be interested in
| 47
Analyzing the preferred space type helps theorize what kind of social function respondents would like a CG to fulfill, if any. “A spot where we can plant things to improve the greenery of our neighborhood” (n=80) is the top choice and “A shared plot where many people work together” (n=69) is second (see Figure 18). Interestingly, “An individual garden spot for just me and my family” (n=57) also received a moderate number of selections. Some respondents (n=27) chose all three top choices, despite the fact that “An individual garden spot for just me and my family” is fundamentally different from the other two. A smaller number of individuals selected “Other” (n=8) as a space choice, with comments including plants for insects, floating gardens, waterfront vegetation, and parks for common use.
Figure 19. How respondents would like to participate in community gardening The Participation type and time set of measures is an indication of the study population’s theoretical level of engagement. The overwhelming majority would prefer to participate by volunteering (n=100). Least popular from the explicit options is to participate by providing garden supplies (n=17). The “Other” responses referred to specific volunteering activities like planting. Figure 19 shows the frequencies for how individuals would participate.
Figure 20. How often respondents would like to participate in community gardening Most respondents reported that they would like to spend “Less than 2 hours a week” (n=54) on gardening, which is only slightly higher than those who chose “2-4 hours a week” (n=50). Almost half of respondents who chose “Management and Organization” as a preferred participation type also chose “Less than 2 hours a week” as a time commitment. Although it was made clear to survey takers that the questionnaire is theoretical (not a literal commitment), it is a curious result for what the authors perceive to be a time-intensive task. The full frequencies for responses regarding how often individuals would like to participate in a CGI are provided in Figure 20.
| 48
4.3. Analysis of the results
In this section, the authors discuss and interpret the survey questionnaire results to further be able to answer the research questions and purpose of this study. Moreover, the findings are evaluated by a twofold approach, connecting the secondary data and the questionnaire data. This chapter is structured to allow discussion based on the different research questions.
4.3.1. Attitudes and behaviors Main research question: How do individuals’ attitudes and behaviors towards sustainability concerns promote or hinder participation in community gardening initiatives? In order to establish a baseline understanding of how respondents’ familiarity with sustainability and community gardening concepts relates to sustainability attitudes and behaviors, a Fisher’s Exact Test and Cramer’s V were evaluated, which indicated that the two are statistically significantly related. One way to interpret this is that increased sustainability education could promote sustainable attitudes and behaviors, which includes community gardening participation. Furthermore, there is also a strong relationship between familiarity with sustainability and community gardening and interest in participation with a CGI. This reinforces the idea that education about sustainability concepts could promote participation in a CGI. However, when comparing sustainability attitudes and behaviors to participation, only one third of the variables are significant, which is an unexpected result. Sub-question I: In the study population, what are the individual attitudes and behaviors towards community gardening initiatives? To establish whether residents feel there is a need for a CG without explicitly asking, the survey measured whether people feel there are enough public green space, plants or trees in their neighborhood. The overwhelming majority (80%) responded no, suggesting that the interest for a CG could be high. Surprisingly, 65% of respondents are not aware of any gardening initiative, although a majority of respondents from Sluseholmen responded yes to being aware of a CGI. This could mean that due to the geographical location of the CGI and targeted communication towards residents of this area, would result in more residents being familiar with the existence of this initiative. Furthermore, residents of Teglholmen, Frederiks Brygge, and Enghave Brygge who indicated a desire for more public green space, plants or trees in their neighborhood, but not being aware of any CGI, could be an indication for the leaders of the CGI that they need to expand their communication strategy to include residents beyond Sluseholmen. Another idea could be that the residents from these areas could potentially organize their own CG, taking inspiration from the existing initiative. There is a very strong association between people who feel a need for more public green space, plants, or trees and a positive attitude toward the idea of community gardening. This supports the notion that residents who would like more green spaces in their area feel that CGs are a good idea. Furthermore, the variables under sustainability attitudes and behaviors that relate to green space show a strong association to having a positive attitude
| 49
toward community gardening. This result seems to match up with the literature that describes the benefits of urban gardening to be a provision of public green space, environmental benefits, and recreational opportunity (Wolf & Robbins, 2015).
4.3.2. Participation Sub-question II: In the study population, why do individuals refrain or not from engaging in community gardening initiatives? To begin with, 86% of respondents indicated they would be interested in participating in a CGI. This sweeping majority could indicate the presence of a self-selection bias, where individuals who are not interested in the topic do not take the survey. Unfortunately, it is not possible for the researchers to determine if self-selection or confounding is occurring. The validity of the data from “not interested in participating in community gardening” respondents could be jeopardized due to the lower number of responses (n=19). It can still be concluded that there is a slight subjective variation among neighborhoods regarding whether respondents would be interested in participating in community gardening, where a higher portion of Teglholmen and Sluseholmen responded yes than Enghave Brygge and Frederiks Brygge. The top reasons for being interested in participating include a desire to add more green to their neighborhood and make their neighborhood more attractive, which is linked to the idea of ownership and pride. The other choices also received a moderate response, with options linked to SC through socialization and involvement in the community. Learning more about the neighborhood was the least popular reason for participation. The top reasons why respondents are not interested in participating are not enough time to garden, not enjoying gardening and not knowing how to garden. It is possible that residents who attributed their lack of interest to not having enough time, are subject to some lack of time sovereignty, which refers to the control of the allocation of activities in the time available (Garhammer, 1995). This relates to a broader discussion of work-life balance where institutional time requirements have developed independently from family or leisure commitments. Schedules may not be flexible enough to engage in activities that build social or human capital. However, this is simply a hypothesis which would require further study to explore. Sub-question III: In the study population, what would encourage individual citizen’s participation in community gardening initiatives? Out of the 19 individuals who are not interested in participating, 13 of them wrote that nothing would encourage them to be involved in a CGI. Obviously, the number of people who responded “no” was very low, therefore, larger samples would increase the statistical validity of the research, specifically for this research question. A few individuals responded that more advertising or training about gardening could encourage them to participate. This corresponds to the aforementioned recommendation that expanded communication strategy could yield more participants. Moreover, the responses about training or workshops support the previous finding that familiarity with sustainability and community gardening is linked to sustainable attitudes and behaviors and willingness to participate, connected to education. Ultimately, because 13 of 19
| 50
naysayers indicated that nothing could really encourage their future participation in a CGI, it is difficult to seriously consider the implications of the responses which preferred more training or advertising. Sub-question IV: In the study population, how would willing individuals prefer to participate in community gardening initiatives? The edible plants were the most popular choice for desired plant type to garden, which contradicts the results from the reasons behind participating in a CG, which only show a moderate popularity of wanting to grow food. The option of wanting to grow decorative plants was less popular, whereas in the reasons for participation, the ideas of wanting to make the neighborhood more attractive were highly popular. This could be due to the way the questions were formulated, since it seems more logical that high desire to make the neighborhood attractive would connect to planting decorative plants, and medium desire to grow food would connect to a smaller popularity of edible plants. The preferred space connects to the literature on SC, of bonding, bridging, and linking SC. An individual garden spot just for me and my family relates to bonding SC, a shared plot where many people work together relates to bridging SC, and a food pantry plot where people work together and donate the harvest to those in need relates to linking SC connected to different subjects discussed in the theoretical framework on SC (Firth et al., 2011, p. 558). The most popular choice was a spot where people can plant things to improve the greenery of their neighborhood, followed by a shared plot where many people work together. This could be related to the desire of consolidating the human and social capital within the neighborhood, and building bridging capital, making the neighborhood greener on a collective level. The linking capital of planting and donating the harvest to those in need was the least popular, which could be connected to the cultural and historical context of the area presented in the Object of study. Lastly, the responses regarding an individual garden for me and my family would represent building bonding capital within an established group, which was not a top priority for the respondents, which could be linked to the desire of consolidating the human and social capital (Firth et al., 2011). Regarding time and type of participation, volunteering represents the vast majority of the responses, followed by the management and organization option. However, the most popular choices for the time commitment was from 0 to 4 hours a week. This conflicts with the perceived intensity of possibly managing and organizing an activity, which could require more commitment depending on the size and complexity of the activity. One observation for the individuals who manage and organize these initiatives is that they should cater their programs in shifts of two hours, so that more people would possibly want to participate. The fact that almost half of respondents who chose management and organization also indicated they would spend less than 2 hours a week on it may indicate some sort of value-action gap, which occurs when personal attitudes do not translate to actual behaviors (Barr, 2006; Dunlap & Van, 2008). These findings are consistent with previous research that identifies a lack of participation as a top challenge for CGs (Drake & Lawson, 2014). Worth mentioning is that through participation it is referred to the time commitment, and not to participation as an action
| 51
per se. As mentioned, although a high number of people responded yes to interest in participation, the time they would be willing to commit is limited. Supply and monetary support did not receive high responses but were consistent with the other secondary challenges noted in the previous literature.
4.4. Practical implications for community gardening organizers
This exploratory information can be used by academics, built environment practitioners, and community gardening organizers to better understand the individual’s perspective and complexity of community gardening. The authors hope to inspire future attempts at organizing community gardening initiatives and successful community engagement. Before concluding on the overall results, the implications of the study for the community gardening organizers or leaders in Sydhavn’s waterfront are discussed here. This section only focuses on community gardening initiatives, community engagement and participation as a practice. More targeted advertisement of the initiative in all neighborhoods Results indicated that Sluseholmen residents were more aware about the CGIs in the area compared to residents of the other neighborhoods. Also, a few of the respondents who are uninterested in gardening, suggested that better advertisement of the initiative may encourage them to participate. Combined with the fact that most respondents desire more green in their neighborhood and believe that community gardening is a good idea, it could be recommended that CGI organizers broaden their communications strategy and advertise to all neighborhoods in order to potentially increase participation. Organize possible training and educational sessions on gardening The study shows that familiarity with sustainability and community gardening concepts is linked to sustainable attitudes and behaviors as well as interest in participation. Moreover, a few of the respondents who are uninterested in gardening, suggested that gardening workshops/training may encourage them to participate. Therefore, organizing more training and educational sessions on gardening could potentially increase participation for the CGI. Engage the residents (possible participants) in the decision-making process As indicated in the academic literature, involvement in the decision-making process may increase participants’ connection with an initiative. The types of gardening spaces, plant types, and maintenance procedures preferred by respondents may, at the current moment, not be reflected by the vision of the CGI leaders. It is possible that involving other residents in the vision and plan, there will be a stronger sense of engagement or participation. Understand the desired time commitment of participants For the organizing team, recognize that people are not willing to spend more than 2-4 hours a week on the gardening activities. Therefore, it is important to find a way to incorporate these time blocks into the gardening activities and give an opportunity got all people to contribute.
| 52
4.5. Limitations
The authors recognize that politics and policies are important when studying sustainable urban development practices, and although touched upon briefly in some parts of this paper, they go beyond the scope of this research. However, it would be interesting to see how community gardening is perceived or impacts the wider part of the society from a political or policy making perspective. The literature on community gardening specifically was scarce, with sources on Danish or Scandinavian practices on community gardening as defined in this study being limited. The relevant literature sources used in this paper are mostly coming from English speaking developed countries, such as North America, Great Britain, or Australia. The questionnaire design with multiple-response questions, which although allowing inclusivity and giving wider opportunities to the respondents, did not allow the authors to draw more in-depth conclusions nor to do more complex statistical testing. Due to the formatting of the raw data for multiple-response questions, tests of association are not possible with this data format. Additional research would be necessary to be able to determine directional or causal relationships among the sustainability attitudes and behaviors and their relation to participation in a CGI. As seen in the data section, women of ages 18-29, and highly educated individuals (above undergraduate studies) were overrepresented in the sample. Due to this uneven representation of the sample population, the authors believe that this would have possibly influenced the results towards a more positive side. Moreover, this could also be linked to the limitations on time and the distribution approach of the survey. A more participatory approach towards the survey was not possible for the study due to the time limitations and the restrictions on social distancing due to the pandemic. The researchers would have liked to approach the study using a mixed-methods approach in order to include a larger variety of citizens beyond the Facebook groups as well as to incorporate some more in-depth personal interviews.
| 53
5. Conclusion and Discussion
Academic literature has identified a lack of participation as the leading challenge for the sustained success of community gardening initiatives. This paper is meant to understand the relationship between the attitudes and behaviors towards the social and environmental aspects of sustainability in community gardening initiatives and individual residents’ resistance or support in Sydhavn’s waterfront. The main research question of How do individuals’ attitudes and behaviors towards sustainability concerns promote or hinder participation in community gardening initiatives? is answered by reviewing previous literature and certain variables from a quantitative online survey. The literature revealed that there are many benefits of community gardening. Socially, community gardens support community cohesion, sense of ownership and pride, and building social capital. Environmentally, community gardens generate countless ecosystem services, such as climate regulation, biodiversity, and noise pollution. Economically, the value of community gardening is still under development, however, it can be concluded that the effects are both positive (e.g., decreased human health costs) and negative (e.g., green gentrification). Survey variables regarding familiarity with sustainability and community gardening concepts shows that there is a strong association to sustainability attitudes and behaviors and interest in community gardening participation. To gain an even deeper insights about what, why, and how the study population interacts with community gardening as a concept and as a practice, four research sub-questions about the study population were examined. Firstly, In the study population, what are the individual attitudes and behaviors towards community gardening initiatives? measured the sustainability attitudes and behaviors in the study population. With regard to the reason of resistance, the question In the target population, why do individuals refrain from engaging in community gardening initiatives? addresses these aspects. Lastly, for what concerns willingness to participate and encouragement, two questions have addressed these concerns: In the target population, what would encourage individual citizen’s participation in community gardening initiatives? and In the target population, how would willing individuals prefer to participate in community gardening initiatives? The study population generally has a positive attitude towards the idea of community gardening and an interest in participating. However, interest in participating varies by neighborhood, with the residents from Sluseholmen showing higher interest. The majority of respondents were interested in participating in a community garden and list the desire to improve the greenery and attractiveness of their neighborhood as top reasons. The few respondents who indicated no interest in participating reasoned that they did not enjoy gardening and do not know how to garden. Due to the fact that familiarity with sustainability and community gardening concepts are linked to willingness to participate and not knowing how to garden was identified as a reason for abstaining, it is possible that increased education on the topic would promote participation. However, individuals who indicated no interest in community gardening also reported that nothing could encourage them to participate. A few naysayers indicated that more advertisement and workshops
| 54
could possibly encourage their participation, which indicates that community gardening organizations may need to focus on an expanded communication strategy and, again, increase education about their project in order to enhance participation levels. Lastly, the interested individuals mostly prefer to participate by volunteering less than four hours per week. This result supports previous literature which states that lack of participation is a key issue. Furthermore, donating money or supplies was not a popular response, which also supports previous literature which identifies lack of funding and supplies as problems. Shared plots to work together and improve the neighborhood were the preferred types of gardens, which indicates a desire to build bonding and bridging social capital among families and neighbors. As the purpose of this these was not to provide a proof of concept, but to establish valuable knowledge of community gardening initiatives and participation, the authors propose a series of further analysis, seen as a natural continuation of this effort. Further studies would be recommended using a more qualitative approach allowing a closer connection to residents and more nuanced data collection. Additionally, the variables regarding attitudes and behaviors should be restructured to increase the accuracy of the metric. Moreover, a wider array of stakeholders (e.g., politics and policies) should be included in the scope of future studies. The results related to time sovereignty and participation could be investigated further to determine if there is a relationship between them. Lastly, a similar study could be replicated in a diverse cultural or societal setting to see how the results differ.
| 55
List of references
Akoglu, H. (2018). User's guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish journal of emergency medicine, 18(3), 91-93. Andersson-Sköld, Y., Thorsson, S., Rayner, D., Lindberg, F., Janhäll, S., Jonsson, A., … Granberg, M. (2015). An integrated method for assessing climate-related risks and adaptation alternatives in urban areas. Climate Risk Management, 7, 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2015.01.003 Arnt, J. (2018). Dreng af Sydhavnen: - erindringer fra 1946 til 1966 (2nd ed.). Retrieved from https://books.google.se/books?id=RLpoDwAAQBAJ Barr, S. (2006). Environmental Action in the Home: Investigating the 'Value-Action' Gap. Geography, 91(1), 43-54. Retrieved May 27, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/40574132 Bell, S., Fox-Kämper, R., Keshavarz, N., Benson, M., Caputo, S., Noori, S., & Voigt, A. (2016). Urban Allotment Gardens in Europe. New York: Routledge. Bellamy, C. (2012). Principles of methodology: research design in social science (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE. Blok, A. (2020). Urban green gentrification in an unequal world of climate change. Urban Studies, 0042098019891050. Brundtland, G. H., Khalid, M., Agnelli, S., Al-Athel, S., & Chidzero, B. (1987). Our common future. New York. Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Certomà, C., Noori, S., & Sondermann, M. (2019). Urban gardening and the struggle for social and spatial justice. Manchester University Press. Colantonio, A., & Dixon, T. (2011). Urban regeneration and social sustainability: Best practice from European cities. John Wiley & Sons. Copenhagen Economic Office. (2020). Sociodemographic data by roder. [Data file]. Copenhagen: Economic Office. Disch, R. (1970). The ecological conscience: Values for survival. Prentice-Hall. Dunlap, R. (1989). Public opinion and environmental policy. In Environmental politics and policy (p. 87–134). Durham: Duke University Press. Dunlap, R., & Van Liere, K. (2008). The “new environmental paradigm.” Journal of Environmental Education, 40(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.40.1.19-28 Egli, V., Oliver, M., & Tautolo, E. S. (2016, June 1). The development of a model of community garden benefits to wellbeing. Preventive Medicine Reports. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.04.005 Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Retrieved from https://books.google.se/books?id=QLg9PgAACAAJ
| i
Fielding, K. S., & Hornsey, M. J. (2016). A social identity analysis of climate change and environmental attitudes and behaviors: Insights and opportunities. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00121 Filazzola, A., Shrestha, N., & MacIvor, J. S. (2019). The contribution of constructed green infrastructure to urban biodiversity: A synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 56(9), 2131–2143. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13475 Firth, C., & Maye & David Pearson, D. (2011). Developing “community” in community gardens. Local Environment, 16(6), 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2011.586025 Garhammer, M. (1995). Changes in working hours in Germany: the resulting impact on everyday life. Time & Society, 4(2), 167-203. Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., & O’Brien, G. (2002). Environment, economy and society: Fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 10(4), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.199 Gilster, M. E. (2012). Comparing neighborhood-focused activism and volunteerism: psychological well-being and social connectedness. Journal of Community Psychology, 40(7), 769–784. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20528 Glover, T. D. (2004). Social capital in the lived experiences of community gardeners. Leisure Sciences, 26(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400490432064 Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Barton, D. N. (2013). Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics, 86(February 2013), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019 Guitart, D., Pickering, C., & Byrne, J. (2012). Past results and future directions in urban community gardens research. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 11(4), 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.06.007 Hansen, J. R. (2015). APRILab: Regulation Dilemma in South Harbor & Aalborg East, Denmark. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Institute of Social Science Research. Horgan, D., & Dimitrijević, B. (2018). Social Innovation Systems for Building Resilient Communities. Urban Science, 2(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci2010013 Hung, Y. (2004). East New York Farms: Youth Participation in Community Development and Urban Agriculture on JSTOR. Children, Youth and Environments, 14(1), 56–85. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/34Jh7gl Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. C. (2013). Flourishing Across Europe: Application of a New Conceptual Framework for Defining Well-Being. Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 837– 861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9966-7 Jung, K. (2017). Sources of Community Resilience in Self-organized collaboration networks: Lessons from the Southeastern Economic Region, South Korea. IGLUS Quarterly. Jupp, V. (2006). The SAGE dictionary of social research methods (Vols. 1-0). London: SAGE Publications, Ltd doi: 10.4135/9780857020116
| ii
Kim, H. Y. (2017). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test. Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 42(2), 152–155. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2017.42.2.152 Kongens Enghave Lokalhistoriske Arkiv. (2020). FRA STENALDER TIL NUTID: Kongens Enghave gennem 7.000 år. Retrieved May 14, 2020, from https://www.sydhavnenshistorie.dk/sydhavnens-historie/aarstalslist/ Kongens Enghave Lokaludvalg. (2017). Bydelsplan for Kongens Enghave. Retrieved from https://www.kk.dk/sites/default/files/uploaded- files/bydelsplan_for_kgs._enghave.pdf Kuo, F. E., Coley, R. L., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for community: Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6), 823–851. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022294028903 Københavnerkortet (Spatial Map). (n.d.). Retrieved from http://kbhkort.kk.dk/spatialmap Københavns Kommune. (1999). Lokalplan nr. 310 (1 & 2), Teglværkshavnen. Københavns Kommune. (2008). Endelig Helhedsplan for Kongens Enghave. Copenhagen. Københavns Kommune. (2009). Lokalplan nr. 310 (3, 8 og 11), Teglværkshavnen. Københavns Kommune. (2013). BYDESIGN I KØBENHAVN ERFARINGER FRA SLUSEHOLMEN. Copenhagen. Københavns Kommune. (2015a). Kvarterplan områdefornyelse Sydhavnen. Retrieved from https://kk.sites.itera.dk/apps/kk_pub2/index.asp?mode=detalje&id=1350 Københavns Kommune. (2015b). Lokalplan nr. 494, Enghave Brygge. Københavns Kommune. (2017). Lokalplan nr. 310 (4, 5 og 7), Teglværkshavnen. Larsen, H. G., & Hansen, A. L. (2008). Gentrification—gentle or traumatic? Urban renewal policies and socioeconomic transformations in Copenhagen. Urban Studies, 45(12), 2429–2448. Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947 Lodewijckx, I. (2019). What is the Difference between Citizen Engagement and Participation? Retrieved May 24, 2020, from https://www.citizenlab.co/blog/civic- engagement/what-is-the-difference-between-citizen-engagement-and-participation MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Metzger, D. S., Kegeles, S., Strauss, R. P., Scotti, R., … Robert, T. T. I. (2001). What Is Community? An Evidence-Based Definition for Participatory Public Health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(12), 1926–1943. Magis, K. (2010). Community Resilience: An Indicator of Social Sustainability. Society & Natural Resources, 23(5), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920903305674 Marques, J., & Dhiman, S. (2018). Leadership today. Springer Texts in Business and Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31036-7
| iii
McCloskey, D. J., Anne McDonald, M., Cook, J., Heurtin-Roberts, S., Updegrove, S., Sampson, D., … Eder, M. (2011). Community Engagement: Definitions and Organizing Concepts from the Literature. Middlemiss, L., & Parrish, B. (2009). Building capacity for low-carbon communities: The role of grassroots initiatives. Energy Policy, 38, 7556–7566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.003 Naoum, S. (2013). Dissertation Research and Writing for Built Environment Students (4th ed.). Oxford: Routledge. Naturvårdsverket. (2018). Guide to valuing ecosystem services. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3bfuOq1 Nettle, C. (2014). Community gardening as social action. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ufl/reader.action?docID=1589603 Ohmer, M. L., Meadowcroft, P., Freed, K., & Lewis, E. (2009). Community gardening and community development: Individual, social and community benefits of a community conservation program. Journal of Community Practice, 17(4), 377–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705420903299961 Okvat, H. A., & Zautra, A. J. (2011). Community Gardening: A Parsimonious Path to Individual, Community, and Environmental Resilience. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47(3–4), 374–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9404-z Open Data DK. (2020). Lokalplaner. Retrieved May 28, 2020, from https://www.opendata.dk/city-of-copenhagen/lokalplaner Pudup, M. B. (2008). It takes a garden: Cultivating citizen-subjects in organized garden projects. Geoforum, 39(3), 1228–1240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.06.012 Project Booklet (2019). GRØNT Sluseholmen og Teglholmen: Et frivilligt projekt af og beboerne på Sluseholmen & Teglholmen. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EKrqcpi9PRd11oMC_0yfRCkwVxvGfx4J/view?usp=sha ring Saldivar-Tanaka, L., Krasny, M. E., & Saldivar, L. (2003). Culturing community development, neighborhood open space, and civic agriculture: The case of Latino community gardens in New York City. Agriculture and Human Values. Scott, D., & Willits, F. K. (1994). Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors: A Pennsylvania Study. Environment and Behavior, 25(2), 239–260. Serrat, O. (2017). Knowledge Solutions: Tools, Methods, and Approaches to Drive Organizational Performance. In Knowledge Solutions (1st ed.). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9 Smith, A., Rressoli, M., Abrol, D., Arond, E., & Ely, A. (2017). Grassroots Innovation Movements. Routledge. Stren, R. E., & Polèse, M. (2000). The Social Sustainability of Cities : Diversity and the Management of Change. University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division.
| iv
Teig, E., Amulya, J., Bardwell, L., Buchenau, M., Marshall, J. A., & Litt, J. S. (2009). Collective efficacy in Denver, Colorado: Strengthening neighborhoods and health through community gardens. Health and Place, 15(4), 1115–1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.06.003 Tharrey, M., Perignon, M., Scheromm, P., Mejean, C., & Darmon, N. (2019). Does participating in community gardens promote sustainable lifestyles in urban settings? Design and protocol of the JArDinS study. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 589. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6815-0 Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2016). Human factors for a sustainable future. Applied Ergonomics, 57(January 2019), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.05.007 Vellet, J. (2020, May 17). [Kapitalens Fodspor Gennem Kobenhavn] [Facebook photo]. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=2745864672312974&set=pcb.1636842123146741 Westley, F. (2013). Social Innovation and Resilience : How One Enhances the Other. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 11(3), 6–8. Whatley, E., Fortune, T., & Williams, A. E. (2015). Enabling occupational participation and social inclusion for people recovering from mental ill-health through community gardening. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 62(6), 428–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12240 Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (2000). The effects of volunteering on the volunteer. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62(4), 141–168. Retrieved from http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/62LCPWilson Wolf, K. L., & Robbins, A. S. T. (2015). Metro Nature, Environmental Health, and Economic Value. Environmental Health Perspectives, 123(5), 390–398. Retrieved from https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1408216
| v
Appendix
Appendix 1 - The tree of life
Figure 1. Model of community gardens and wellbeing (Egli et al., 2016)
| vi
Appendix 2 - Ecosystem services for Community gardens
Table 2. Potential Ecosystem Services of Urban Green Spaces and Community Gardens Provisioning Services Citation Food production: Gardens can produce edible vegetables, herbs, and fruits, Bell et al., 2016 although current trends in community gardens shift towards ornamental plants.
Regulating Services Citation
Carbon sequestration: Plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and process it, resulting in oxygen released back into the atmosphere while carbon is Okvat & Zautra, 2011 stored in the soil. This generates increased soil fertility and decrease of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climate Regulation: Concentrations of built material, like concrete, generate abnormally high temperatures in cities during warm periods, known as heat island effect. Vegetation combats this by providing shade, reducing heat Bell et al., 2016 absorption into the ground, and evapotranspirative cooling (i.e., increasing air humidity). Air purification: Plants and trees are known to remove air pollution including numerous greenhouse gases, heavy metals, and particulate matter. Note that Bell et al., 2016; Okvat
community gardens may be relatively small compared to larger green spaces & Zautra, 2011 and explicit studies regarding their air purification potential are lacking.
Water purification: Permeable surfaces like vegetation can filter solids and Andersson-Sköld et al.,
pollutants from water. 2015
Stormwater management: Impermeable surfaces and hardscapes (such as roads, parking lots, or roofs) often contain harmful substances that are released Andersson-Sköld et al., during rain events. Integrating vegetation into the urban landscape provides a 2015; Bell et al., 2016 permeable surface for contaminated runoff water to percolate into the soil, instead of polluting open water bodies where animals or humans are affected. Erosion control: High volumes of stormwater runoff can lead to erosion and Andersson-Sköld et al.,
flooding. Infiltration absorbs runoff and helps to combat flooding and erosion. 2015; Bell et al., 2016 Pollination/seed dispersal: Urban systems are home to important bird and bee Gómez-Baggethun &
populations, thereby maintaining processes of pollination and seed dispersal. Barton, 2013 Noise pollution: Trees and shrubs significantly reduce noise, while evidence Wolf & Robbins, 2015 suggests a negative relationship between noise and health. Supporting services Citation Biodiversity/habitat: Natural elements support biodiversity in urban contexts by Filazzola, Shrestha, & providing more suitable habitat than conventional infrastructure. Community MacIvor, 2019; Bell et gardens provide habitats for many flora and fauna and may be crucial to al., 2016 maintain biodiversity.
Cultural services Citation
Awareness: Create awareness of environmental issues in general. Okvat & Zautra, 2011 Interconnectedness: Develop awareness of the connection of human actions and Okvat & Zautra, 2011 the natural environment, and humans as part of the earth. Sustainability education: Community gardens can have an environmental Okvat & Zautra, 2011 education component focused on sustainability.
| vii
Appendix 3 - Strategic stakeholder engagement
Design Guidelines for Public Participation (Teig et al., 2009) Assess and design context and purpose 1. Assess and fit the design to the context and the problem - Ensure the need of public participation (can be mandated, more bottom-up, or a combination of the two) - Understand the problem and challenges that need to be solved - Design for participation must be tailored to assist response development 2. Identify purposes and design to achieve them - Define and clarify the purpose for the participation process (process overlooked in practice, at ties ending up with unfortunate results) - Revisit the purposes and desired outcomes of participation and redesign accordingly
Enlist resources and manage the participation
3. Analyze and appropriately involve stakeholders - Clarify who are the stakeholders and how to involve them - Involving and communicating with stakeholders are to be differentiated throughout the process (some stakeholders would be more relevant into one part of a project, than other) - Decide on a basic strategy for engagement (i.e. to inform, to collaborate, or to empower) - Appendix 2 illustrates a tool helping articulate purposes and consider how to fulfill them over the course of the decision-making. 4. Work with stakeholders to establish the legitimacy of the process - Establish legitimacy of the process as a form of engagement and trusted interaction among internal and external stakeholders - The form that participation takes is seen as legitimate by stakeholders and attracts internal and external support and resources - The participation network produces interactions that build trust and legitimacy among participants, also promoting necessary communication - Let potential participants know the purpose of the process and how their participants will influence outcomes 5. Foster effective leadership - Ensure that the participation process leadership roles of sponsoring, championship, and facilitating are adequately fulfilled - Effective leadership is required in designing and implementing public participation (from ignoring, to informing, to consulting, to involving, to collaborating, to empowering) - Leadership can be exercised by one or many individuals associated with a public participation process, but particularly important: sponsors are the people with formal authority that can be used to legitimize and underwrite participation efforts; champions have considerable responsibility for managing the day-to-day participation efforts; facilitators maintain neutrality toward outcomes, and help group work together productively 6. Seek resources for and through participation - Secure adequate resources or design and manage participation processes so to generate additional resources - Production costs (costs incurred by the organizers of the participation process) and Participation costs (costs incurred by citizens for their participation) may interrelate and affect one another - A carefully managed participation process can contribute resources for public purposes 7. Create appropriate rules and structures to guide the process - Informal or informal ground rules, shapes and are shaped by participant interactions by structures and rules about how participants will work together, being positive, moral obligations, commitments increase and trust building. - When participants violate rules and norms, trust will be undermined and hard to rebuild 8. Use inclusive processes to engage diversity productively - The processes and structures are needed that are highly inclusive, engage diversity and seek advantages from it, and address issues of conflict and power differences - In terms of stakeholders, include those normally excluded from the decision making by institutionalized inequalities
| viii
- Establish clear ground rules of working through differences of a diverse group and allow resolution 9. Manage power dynamics - Provide opportunities for meaningful participation, exchange, and influence on decision outcomes, through managing power dynamics - Understand the target group and design processes that reflect the context and situations (i.e., shifting from formal public hearings, where only few are comfortable with the format, to one-on-one interactions between public managers and residents to reduce domination and marginalization) - Engage participants in co-producing the agenda and process for decision making - Integrate “local” knowledge with professional knowledge of experts to create a holistic solution - Build trust by sharing information, knowledge, demonstrate competency, good intentions, follow-through and emphasize the effectiveness of achieving “small wins” together for building trust 10. Use technologies of various kinds to achieve participation purposes - Provide information, communication and technologies that help communicate the information, such as computer-generated visualizations, mapping tools - Provide public access to the information, but acknowledge the limits among public participants and limitations to planners and managers
Evaluate and redesign continuously 11. Develop and use evaluation measures - Develop measures and evaluation methods supporting the production of the desired outcomes - Doing both formative and summative evaluations can help policy making learn from implementation and enhance effectiveness - When the outcomes are too intangible to measure, stating the purposes help administrators focus the design and management of participation towards desired outcomes 12. Design and redesign - Align participation goals, participation purposes, types of engagement, promises made to participants, engagement methods, technologies, and techniques, steps, and resources in the process.
| ix
Appendix 4 - Inspiration of the object of study
| x
Appendix 5 - Sydhavn’s zoning and green configuration Sluseholmen North (Local Plan 310/1, Københavns Kommune, 1999)
| xi
Sluseholmen S (Local Plan 310/3, Københavns Kommune, 2009)
| xii
Teglholmen (Local Plan 310/2, Københavns Kommune, 2009)
| xiii
Frederiks Brygge (Local Plan 310/4, Københavns Kommune, 2015b)
| xiv
Enghave Brygge (Local Plan 494, Københavns Kommune, 2017)
| xv
Appendix 6 - Raw survey data
Field Choice Count
Residence Yes 100% 131 Consent Yes 100% 131 How familiar are you with the following concepts/terms? Sustainability (Social, Environment, Economy) Not at all familiar 2.29% 3 Slightly familiar 10.69% 14 Somewhat familiar 18.32% 24 Moderately familiar 42.75% 56 Extremely familiar 25.95% 34 Community & Urban gardening Not at all familiar 12.98% 17 Slightly familiar 15.27% 20 Somewhat familiar 34.35% 45 Moderately familiar 28.24% 37 Extremely familiar 9.16% 12 Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Not at all familiar 1.53% 2 Slightly familiar 8.40% 11 Somewhat familiar 19.85% 26 Moderately familiar 45.04% 59 Extremely familiar 25.19% 33 To what extent do you agree with the following? Living a sustainable lifestyle is important to me Strongly disagree 0.76% 1 Disagree 0.76% 1 Neutral 23.66% 31 Agree 45.04% 59 Strongly Agree 29.77% 39 Finding new solutions to be more eco-conscious is important Strongly disagree 0.00% 0 Disagree 3.05% 4 Neutral 26.72% 35 Agree 43.51% 57 Strongly Agree 26.72% 35 I try to reuse/recycle as often as possible Strongly disagree 0.00% 0 Disagree 4.58% 6 Neutral 13.74% 18 Agree 42.75% 56 Strongly Agree 38.93% 51 I think about conscious consumption when shopping Strongly disagree 0.76% 1 Disagree 6.87% 9 Neutral 25.95% 34 Agree 40.46% 53 Strongly Agree 25.95% 34 I am aware of my water consumption Strongly disagree 1.53% 2 Disagree 9.92% 13 Neutral 29.77% 39 Agree 46.56% 61 Strongly Agree 12.21% 16 I am aware of my transportation footprint Strongly disagree 3.05% 4 Disagree 3.82% 5
| xvi
Neutral 23.66% 31 Agree 38.17% 50 Strongly Agree 31.30% 41 Public green space in my neighborhood are important to me Strongly disagree 0.76% 1 Disagree 0.76% 1 Neutral 5.34% 7 Agree 29.01% 38 Strongly Agree 64.12% 84 I am aware of the environmental benefits of green space Strongly disagree 1.53% 2 Disagree 0.76% 1 Neutral 14.50% 19 Agree 35.88% 47 Strongly Agree 47.33% 62 Outdoor recreation opportunities are important to me Strongly disagree 0.00% 0 Disagree 3.82% 5 Neutral 7.63% 10 Agree 25.19% 33 Strongly Agree 63.36% 83 Based on the image above (map with the area), which neighborhood do you live in? Enghave Brygge 16.79% 22 Frederiks Brygge 18.32% 24 Teglholmen 35.11% 46 Sluseholmen 29.77% 39 Do you feel there are enough public spaces, plants or trees in your area? Yes 19.85% 26 No 80.15% 105 Do you know of any community gardening initiatives? Yes 35.11% 46 No 64.89% 85 How do you feel about the idea of having a community garden in your area? Very bad idea 0.00% 0 Bad idea 1.53% 2 Neutral 8.40% 11 Good idea 37.40% 49 Very good idea 52.67% 69 Theoretically, would you be interested in participating in a community garden in your area? Yes 35.11% 46 Yes, but only if it was in *my area* 37.40% 49 Yes, but only if it was in my building’s courtyard 12.98% 17 No 14.50% 19 Why are you not interested in participating in a community garden in your area? (only for the people answering NO to the previous question) I already have a garden 4.08% 2 I am happy with how my neighborhood/area looks 4.08% 2 I do not have enough time to garden 20.41% 10 I do not know how to grow plants 18.37% 9 I cannot afford additional expenses 12.24% 6 I do not have childcare 4.08% 2 I already have the plants I need 2.04% 1 I do not enjoy hardening 20.41% 10 I think community gardens are unattractive 2.04% 1 Other 12.24% 6 What would encourage you to participate in a community garden in your area? (multiple choice option) Inclusive activities and decision-making processes 4.17% 1 Training or workshops about gardening 16.67% 4
| xvii
More advertising of the initiative in the local area 12.50% 3 Language translation of the project 4.17% 1 Other 62.50% 15 Why are you interested in participating in a community garden? (multiple choice option) Add more green to my neighborhood/area 17.84% 94 Be more involved in my community 11.01% 58 Socialize with my neighbors 11.20% 59 Recreation/ for enjoyment 13.09% 69 Learn more about gardening 8.35% 44 Learn more about my neighborhood/area 3.04% 16 Feel a sense of ownership and pride for my neighborhood/area 10.44% 55 Make my neighborhood more attractive 14.23% 75 I want to grow my own food 0.57% 3 Other 10.25% 54 What types of plants are you interested in growing in the community garden? (multiple choice option) Fruits 14.81% 60 Berries 17.04% 69 Vegetables 16.79% 68 Herbs 19.26% 78 Flowers 18.02% 73 Decorative plants 11.60% 47 Other 2.47% 10 What kind of space would you be interested in? An individual garden sport just for me and my family 22.98% 57 A shared plot where many people work together 27.82% 69 A food pantry plot where people work together and donate the harvest to those in need 13.71% 34 A spot where we can plant things to improve the greenery of our neighborhood 32.26% 80 Other 3.23% 8 How often would you like to participate in a community garden? Less than 2 hours a week 48.21% 54 2-4 hours a week 44.64% 50 5-7 hours a week 5.36% 6 8-10 hours a week 1.79% 2 More than 10 hours a week 0.00% 0 Theoretically, how would you like to participate in the community gardening initiative? (multiple choice option) Volunteering (e.g., attend events, trash pick-up, garden maintenance) 55.56% 100 Monetary support 12.78% 23 Gardening supplies 9.44% 17 Management and organization 20.00% 36 Other 2.22% 4 How long have you been living in the waterfront area of Sydhavn? Less than 6 months 12.98% 17 6 to 12 months 21.37% 28 1 to 3 years 45.04% 59 4 to 6 years 9.16% 12 7 years or more 11.45% 15 What gender do you identify with? Male 31.30% 41 Female 67.18% 88 Non-binary/poly-gender 0.00% 0 I prefer not to answer 0.76% 1 Other 0.76% 1 How old are you? Under 18 0.00% 0 18 - 29 41.22% 54 30 - 39 30.53% 40
| xviii
40 - 49 12.98% 17 50 - 64 4.58% 6 Over 65 10.69% 14 What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? No education 0.76% 1 Trade/technical/vocational training 2.29% 3 High School (gymnasium) 8.40% 11 Completed undergraduate education (college or university) 33.59% 44 Postgraduate education (kandidat or masters) 49.62% 65 Completed higher education (doctorate) 5.34% 7
| xix
Appendix 7 - Scale composition
Part Measures Questions
Part 1 Attitudes and Sustainability awareness How familiar are you with the following concepts/terms? (Not at all behaviors towards familiar, Slightly familiar, Somewhat familiar, Moderately familiar, sustainability Extremely familiar)
Sustainability attitudes To what extent do you agree with the following? (Strongly disagree, and behaviors Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree)
Part 2 Neighborhood Neighborhood Based on the image above (map with the area), which neighborhood do you live in?
Need for the initiative Do you feel there are enough public spaces, plants or trees in your area? (Yes/No)
Part 3 Need and Knowledge about the Do you know of any community gardening initiatives? (Yes/No) participation initiative
Attitude towards the How do you feel about the idea of having a community garden in your initiative area? (Very bad idea, Bad idea, Neutral, Good idea, Very good idea)
Participation interest Theoretically, would you be interested in participating in a community garden in your area?
No participation Why are you not interested in participating in a community garden in No participation and your area? (only for the people answering NO to the previous question) encouragement
Reasons for What would encourage you to participate in a community garden in participation your area? (multiple choice option)
Plant preference Why are you interested in participating in a community garden? (multiple choice option)
Space and social ties What types of plants are you interested in growing in the community garden? (multiple choice option)
Participation type What kind of space would you be interested in?
Participation time Theoretically, how would you like to participate in the community gardening initiative? (multiple choice option)
How often would you like to participate in a community garden?
Part 4 Demographic study How long have you been living in the waterfront area of Sydhavn?
What gender do you identify with?
How old are you?
What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?
| xx
Appendix 8 - Copy of the survey questionnaire
| xxi
| xxii
| xxiii