Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn Geographisches Institut M.Sc. Geographie Projektseminar M4: ‚Dublin between Boom and Crisis‘ Dozentinnen: Prof. Dr. Britta Klagge & Katja Thiele Sommersemester 2016

The Emergence and Development of Initiatives: A Case Study of Dublin

Submitted by:

Sandra Schmid Email: [email protected]

Sophia Brückner Email: [email protected]

Christina Drescher Email: [email protected]

Bonn, 05.12.2016

Content

List of Figures ………………………………………………………………………………………....I

1 Degrowth Initiatives in Dublin: An Introduction ...... 1

2 Theoretical Background ...... 2

2.1 The Concept of Neoliberalism ...... 2

2.2 The Concept of Degrowth ...... 3 2.3 Degrowth Initiatives of the Voluntary Sector ...... 5 2.4 Case Study: Degrowth Initiatives in Dublin ...... 5

2.5 Analytical Framework ...... 7

3 Methodology: Data Acquisition and Analysis ...... 10 3.1 Research Design ...... 11

3.2 Criteria and Sampling ...... 11

3.3 Semi-structured Interviews with Experts and Initiatives and semi-structured Walking Interviews ...... 12 3.4 Online Survey with Participants of Initiatives ...... 14

4 Assessing Degrowth Initiatives in Dublin: Results ...... 15

4.1 Types of Degrowth Initiatives ...... 15 4.2 Characteristics of Members ...... 18 4.3 Social and Economic Contexts...... 20

4.3.1 ...... 20

4.3.2 The Economic Crisis 2008 ...... 23

4.3.3 Obstacles and Challenges ...... 25 4.3.4 Stakeholders and Networks ...... 27

4.4 Participants’ Motivations ...... 28

4.4.1 Social Dimension ...... 29

4.4.2 Ecological Dimension ...... 30

4.4.3 Economic Dimension ...... 31 5 Conclusion ...... 32 List of References ...... 34 Appendix in digital form

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Research Design (Source: authors` design) ...... 11

Figure 2: Map of degrowth initiatives in Dublin city (own design & data) ...... 16

Figure 3: New Initiatives founded per year (1984-2016) (own data and figure) ...... 18

Figure 4: Participants` occupation (own data and figure) ...... 19

Figure 5: Participants` level of education (own data and figure) ...... 19

Figure 6: Participants´ household income per year (own data and figure) ...... 19

Figure 7: Age groups in degrowth initiatives in Dublin (own data and figure) ...... 22

Figure 8: Aspects of Life affected by economic crash 2008 (own data and figure) ...... 24

Figure 9: People´s motivation to participate in degrowth activities (own data and figure) ..... 29

Table 1: List of Interview partners in Dublin ...... 13

Table 2: List of Degrowth Initiatives in Dublin based on online research ...... 17

I

1 Degrowth Initiatives in Dublin: An Introduction

During the golden age of capitalism (~1945 - 1975) – marked by high prosperity – economic and political decision-makers followed the leading paradigm that economic growth and a rising gross domestic product (GDP) positively contribute to the social and economic development of nations. Since the 1970s, however, the strong advocacy for the capitalist system and economic growth as wellbeing-improving mechanisms has been increasingly challenged by critical voices from all parts of society (BIERL 2015: 345). This growth criticism was further triggered by the report ‘the Limits to Growth’, which was published by the Club of Rome in 1972 and highlighted that many of our natural resources are finite and that the earth’s capacity is limited by planetary boundaries (DEMARIA et al. 2013: 195). Following anti- and ecological movements, activists developed a new concept during the 2000s (BIERL 2015: 348), which is based on the assumption that infinite economic growth is not possible and therefore the (global) society should move towards a (sustainable) ‘degrowth’ instead (SCHNEIDER et al. 2010). This new concept has gained increasing interest and attention by scholars and the media, but also by economists and politicians. Proponents argue that a lower focus on formal work, material prosperity and consumption, but a higher emphasis on social values and (informal) voluntary work lead to a higher wellbeing and life satisfaction. Specifically within the civil society many grassroots initiatives emerged that favor ecological, social and/or local aspects and aim to lower individual consumption (ANDREONI & GALMARINI 2013; D’ALISA et al. 2015) in the sense of ‘’ (BIERL 2015: 346). In this regard, scholars observed that many of those bottom-up initiatives – seeking an alternative development – emerged in countries that were severely hit by the economic crisis in 2008 (e.g. CALVÁRIO & KALLIS 2016: 2). Dublin – the capital of Ireland that was heavily affected by the financial downturn in 2008 – hence, serves as a suspenseful example to examine the emergence of degrowth initiatives in a European city against the background of the economic crash. To carry out the Dublin case study, a suitable theoretical approach is the degrowth theory.

A principal objective of this research project is to investigate the social and economic contexts in which degrowth initiatives in Dublin emerge(d) and how this setting has shaped the development of these initiatives. A major focus will be on the economic crisis in 2008. In this regard, it will be evaluated whether degrowth initiatives were actually influenced by the crisis and if yes, how they were shaped. By taking a closer look at the context of emergence, the focus is to investigate the types of degrowth initiatives that can be found in Dublin and how they can be characterized. A further research question is aimed at the motivations of people to participate in degrowth initiatives in order to find out whether they have social, ecological and/ or economic motives and if those motives can be related to the crash in 2008 or to a broader socioeconomic crisis.

1

Case Study Dublin – Structure of the Report

This report based on the case study of Dublin is structured as follows: The second chapter deals with the theoretical background as an introduction to the principal concepts relevant in this project: Neoliberalism, degrowth and the voluntary sector (or civil society; see chapter 2.3). The following section introduces the case study of Dublin. The last section (2.5) contains the analytical framework, which is based on the derivation of the research questions from the theories. The applied methodology will be elaborated in the third chapter. The fourth chapter comprises the analysis and assessment of the empirical results with the inclusion of the theoretical concepts in order to draw more general conclusions on the emergence and development of grassroots degrowth initiatives in Western societies. The fifth chapter contains the overall conclusion and relates this research project to the context of the broader degrowth research.

2 Theoretical Background

The upcoming chapter deals with the background concept of neoliberalism, which is followed by the concept of degrowth that serves as the principal framework for alternative development initiatives. Afterwards, those degrowth initiatives will be further classified as voluntary sector actors. The second part of chapter two describes the case study of degrowth initiatives in Dublin. Degrowth initiatives in Dublin form the principal research objects, which will be closely investigated in the subsequent sections of this report. At this point it is claimed that the literature found on degrowth mainly had an economic and/ or ecological perspective on a larger scale. Literature on bottom-up, civil society actors that could be adequately applied to the degrowth context and similar case studies conducted in other locations that could have served as orientation were very limited.

2.1 The Concept of Neoliberalism

This chapter is about the model of neoliberalism as a form of capitalism that can be associated with the concepts of growth, prosperity and crisis, which form important aspects that the degrowth theory takes up as well. The illustration of the interrelations among these concepts and in relation to neoliberalism clarifies the oppositional attitude of degrowth advocates and their striving for degrowth as an alternative development in response to the current neoliberal agenda.

KALLIS et al. (2012) define capitalism as ‘the social system where private property and market transactions dominate [and as] a system structured around continuous accumulation [and] […] growth’ (2012: 177). The neoliberal agenda, which can be regarded a form of capitalism (KASSER n.d.: 1), comprises the features privatization, commodification and deregulation. Since the 1980s Western political and economic actors have largely been following the neoliberal paradigm by advocating a free market with little state interference, privatizing public assets (e.g. social welfare provision) and the commodification of environmental commons (D’ALISA et al. 2015: 329; HARVEY 2005: 160f.). The principal objective of the 2

neoliberal agenda is to spur economic prosperity due to infinite economic growth. Proponents assume that a rising income and higher consumption levels result in improved human wellbeing and quality of life (JACKSON 2009: 3). This neoliberal approach primarily includes monetary and material values such as profit and income and is based on the assumption that solely economic growth leads to prosperity of the society. This view is highly contested by degrowth advocates, which is depicted in chapter 2.2.

DEMARIA et al., however, highlight a ‘disconnect between income increase and life satisfaction over time’ (2013: 197). In addition, an international study conducted by Richard EASTERLIN, for instance, revealed a negative association of income and happiness among nations (EASTERLIN 1974), which is also known as the ‘Easterlin Paradox’ (DEMARIA et al. 2013: 197; see also JACKSON 2008: 51). KASSER (n.d.) even claims that individuals with high aspirations for consumption and material wealth state lower rates of happiness, while suffering more often from depression and anxiety (n.d.: 2). Thus, instead of seeking high material prosperity, social progress should aim at personal wellbeing and social cohesion by including social and psychological factors and further consider the limited capacity of the natural environment (KASSER n.d.: 8). Therefore, JACKSON (2009) proposes a concept of prosperity that comprises ‘the elimination of hunger and homelessness, an end to poverty and injustice, hopes for a secure and peaceful world’ (2009: 1). Moreover, prosperity is about our ‘ability to flourish […] [and] to participate meaningfully in the life of society’ (JACKSON 2009: 143).

According to JACKSON (2009), the adoption of the neoliberal approach with continuous economic growth as the leading paradigm has led to a socioeconomic crisis or ‘social recession’ with rising inequalities in the societies of developed countries (2009: 144). Indicators are increasing rates of anxiety, depression and alcoholism as well as higher feelings of loneliness and the loss of community and trust (ibid.). JACKSON claims that prosperity cannot be achieved by economic development and materialistic means and, hence, he considers ‘economic prosperity […] a modern construction’ (2009: 5). Contemporary Western societies suffer from financial downturn(s) and austerity measures as well as from a rising individualization that subordinate social values such as solidarity and community, which are regarded as crucial for human wellbeing and prosperity (D’ALISA et al. 2015: 328-330, 335; KASSER n.d.: 2). D’ALISA et al. further refer to ‘multidimensional crises’ to emphasize the extent of social, political and ecological impacts beyond the private economy (2015: 328). In the context of the capitalist system and in response to the ‘social recession’ scholars developed the concept of degrowth that is explained hereafter.

2.2 The Concept of Degrowth

The concept of degrowth is a critique of the current capitalist system and the neoliberal agenda, which was outlined above. In contrary to an infinite growth paradigm, SCHNEIDER et al. (2010) demand a sustainable degrowth that is socially and environmentally compatible and define sustainable degrowth as ‘an equitable downscaling of production and 3

consumption that increases human wellbeing and enhances ecological conditions at the local and global level, in the short and long term’ (2010: 512). PAECH (2009) introduces the term post-growth economy (‘Postwachstumsökonomie’) that requires a decoupling from the compulsion to economic growth (2009: 28). Degrowth, however, is not limited to the economic context and thus, it is more appropriate to consider a transformation of the whole society. Central components of a degrowth society are among others local and self- production, life extension of goods, less resource use, sharing, reciprocity work and conviviality (ANDREONI & GALMARINI 2013: 64; DEMARIA et al. 2013: 197; PAECH 2009: 29-31). According to degrowth proponents, those features are lacking in today’s consumer society based on individualism and neoliberalism that results in a socioeconomic crisis. In addition, human wellbeing and quality of life play substantial roles in this model. Prosperity can be enhanced by a lifestyle of voluntary simplicity, a stronger focus on social relations and voluntary (non-paid) work – instead of material satisfaction due to consumption (ANDREONI & GALMARINI 2013: 65).

Degrowth proponents share the view that within the current neoliberal system economic and political actors are incapable of sufficiently meeting the basic needs and desires – such as , shelter, health and education – of a rising share of the population. Within this contemporary socioeconomic crisis degrowth developments and initiatives have been emerging as alternatives to the (considered) deficient economic and political institutions and actions shaped by the capitalist system (D’ALISA et al. 2015: 330; KALLIS 2015: 3). Degrowth actors abandon the idea of economic growth as an inevitable striving and, instead, aim at a socioecological transformation of the society (DEMARIA et al. 2013: 194). DEMARIA et al. frame these degrowth strategies and actors as a social movement containing different facets and scales. Degrowth actions can take place between the local and global level and ‘vary from opposition, building alternatives (creation of new institutions) and reformism (actions within existing institutions to create conditions for societal transformation)’ (DEMARIA et al. 2013: 201). In addition, they can also occur in all three societal sectors: the private market, the public sector and the voluntary sector (or civil society) (MOULAERT & AILENEI 2005: 2043).

In order to underline the significance of the local aspect for the degrowth approach, the concept of localism is added here. Localism is a very broad term that can be applied to various contexts. From a social view, localism deals with communities and is concerned with the question whether they are place-based communities being tied to a certain location or whether they emerge, because their members share common values and interests regardless of a particular location. In the context of this research project relevant questions to consider are: How important are local aspects? Can we speak of one community (organic whole) or rather loose, fragmented initiatives in Dublin? At the environmental level, ‘localism is seen as a path to ’ referring to reducing and decentralizing economic activities in order to combat global ecological problems (DAVOUDI & MADANIPOUR 2015: 1).

4

To limit the scope this study will solely focus on actors and initiatives that build alternatives at the local level of the voluntary sector. The concept of degrowth is being used to frame those alternative development initiatives as local voluntary sector actors in the following section.

2.3 Degrowth Initiatives of the Voluntary Sector

According to MOULAERT and AILENEI (2005), the voluntary sector ‘embraces all those organisations, large or small, which are not part of the state or part of the private profit sector and will include very small community groups […]’ (2005: 2043). They further distinguish between more formal non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and community organizations. Degrowth initiatives, which are the research objects of this study, are defined as community organizations that are usually ‘smaller and quite independent, operating only at [the] local community level’ (ibid.). Furthermore, they can be linked to the social economy as actors, who ‘respond to the alienation and non-satisfaction of needs by the traditional private sector or the public sector in times of socioeconomic crisis’ (MOULAERT & AILENEI 2005: 2014).

Degrowth initiatives as grassroots voluntary sector actors include among others community gardens, co-housing, eco villages, transition towns, consumer cooperatives, repair cafés, exchange platforms, sharing and cycling projects (DEMARIA et al. 2013: 202; KALLIS 2015: 3; PAECH 2009: 30). Unlike more radical forms of oppositional activism, practitioners of building alternatives are usually less political (D’ALISA et al. 2015: 334). They establish new institutions that change their everyday activities as well as their ‘individual values and behavior’ (DEMARIA et al. 2013: 202). A common characteristic is the focus on greater independence of global value chains by favoring a decentralized, local economy and lowering resource use as well as consumption needs (ibid.). In addition, those initiatives involve high levels of non-paid work and social aspects are essential to them. By taking into account social and ecological values in large parts of their everyday activities, they represent alternative practices to the conventional strong emphasis on consumption and material prosperity that is triggered by the neoliberal agenda of contemporary Western consumer societies.

SEYFANG and SMITH (2007) take up the connection between grassroots initiatives and the concept of . Applied to this context degrowth activities can further be termed as grassroots innovations that are ‘networks of activists and organisations generating novel bottom–up solutions for sustainable development’ at the community level (SEYFANG & SMITH 2007: 585). They are innovative in the sense that they are small-scale answers to local challenges and consider the specific needs and values of the community as well as including social (,economic) and ecological elements (ibid.).

2.4 Case Study: Degrowth Initiatives in Dublin

Dublin serves as an appropriate research object for the topic of degrowth as it was severely hit by the financial downturn in 2008 and scholars claim a connection between 5

socioeconomic crises and the emergence of degrowth actions. Since degrowth trends have been arising in other European countries heavily impacted by the economic crisis (CALVÁRIO & KALLIS 2016: 2), a similar development can be assumed for the Irish context.

Background of Ireland

Until its independence in 1921 Ireland had been a colony of England, which was shaped by an economic underdevelopment and had served as a ‘supplier of agricultural products’ under

English rule (SCHWARZ & RAY 2005: 385; Web1). After its independence Ireland remained a provincial country based on an agricultural economy and entered a severe recession in the 1980s. During the Celtic Tiger Era (~1993-2007) the economic context has changed fundamentally. The Irish economy grew strongly and it has been increasingly based on neoliberal principles with high deregulation and privatization as well as large inward foreign direct investments. Specifically the construction industry and the housing sector grew along with rising housing prices. Ireland enjoyed very low unemployment and high wages during that period (SCOTT et al. 2012: 152; WILLIAMS 2006: 549-551). After the economic crash in 2008, however, Ireland was strongly affected by high unemployment, wage cuts and rising emigration rates (KETTLE 2014: 32). Additionally, the country entered a housing crisis with increasing numbers of homeless households and people on the waiting list for social housing, as they could not afford privately owned or rented accommodation (KITCHIN et al. 2015: 12). Moreover, neoliberalism and economic growth continued to be the leading paradigms for national and urban politics (BRESNIHAN & BYRNE 2014: 40). In order to revive the economy the state introduced strict austerity measures that have led to a further retreat of the social welfare system, the state and the focus on social (and ecological) aspects (KITCHIN et al. 2012: 1317). For instance, the state cut public investments for social housing, which resulted in a diminished stock of social housing units (KITCHIN et al. 2015: 12).

Context of Dublin

The overall situation of Ireland can be applied to the context of Dublin: urban development policies and city government measures have been increasingly based on the neoliberal model as well. The focus has been on private investments and privatizing public space that neglect social aspects and the needs of the citizens such as quality of life enhancement. In 2008 the city was severely affected by the crisis just like the rest of the country (BRESNIHAN & BYRNE 2014: 40; SCOTT et al. 2012: 148). Studies on contemporary life in (Western) cities – including Dublin – demonstrate a shift towards a strong pursuit of consumption and status symbols such as home and car ownership, while social values like social cohesion and bonds of solidarity diminish (KETTLE 2014: 31). At the same time, however, citizens are more and more dissatisfied and frustrated with such a ‘commercialization of urban life’ accompanied by less social urban space and less citizens’ participation that can be considered as ‘Dublin’s ‘great enclosure’’ (BRESNIHAN & BYRNE 2014: 39-40). As a result, Dublin citizens have started to create alternative development initiatives during the past years to shape urban space and to create more social space (BRESNIHAN & BYRNE 2014: 38,

6

48). Emerging initiatives drawn from the literature review are community gardens, independent spaces and workspaces (BRESNIHAN & BYRNE 2014: 40; KETTLE 2014: 30). The research for additional alternative development initiatives and the analysis under the degrowth framework will be explained more closely in the subsequent chapters. The evaluation of a potential connection between impacts of the economic crisis 2008 and the emergence of those degrowth initiatives in Dublin will form an important part of the analysis of this report.

2.5 Analytical Framework

In the following, the analytical framework is set up by developing the research questions, which are derived from the theoretical concepts, and by presenting the methodology that is applied to adequately answer the research questions. The methods used are an online survey with participants, semi-structured interviews with experts and initiatives and semi- structured walking interviews (with initiatives). The principal focus is on the types of initiatives, the social and economic contexts, the crisis and participants’ motivations.

Types of Initiatives

One of the key concerns is to get an overview on the different kinds of degrowth initiatives that are located in Dublin. During the online research and literature review different types of initiatives had been found prior to the empirical phase in Dublin. The project seeks to review and complete these findings to get a more comprehensive ‘picture’ of the initiatives. The code for the different types for the analysis of the survey and interviews is ‘type of members’. By looking at the different types a focus of interest is to get a deeper understanding of the reasons why they were set up and what role did the social and economic contexts play (e.g. the neoliberal urban development, crisis). The following research question asks:

 What types of degrowth initiatives can be found in Dublin and how can they be characterized?

Following the literature on the degrowth concept there is a large variety of initiatives that can be characterized as ‘degrowth’. In the following, the most relevant types of initiatives for the Dublin context will be illustrated and grouped where possible. a) Community Gardens

Community gardens usually have a strong social focus and are often initiated by private or community based grassroots organizations and local NGOs in urban areas (BELL & CERULLI 2012: 34). They are locally based, often organic and focus on sustainable food production (JAROSZ 2008: 232f.). Community garden activities ‘are broad and diverse and can include the cultivation of vegetables, medicinal plants, spices, mushrooms, fruit trees, and other productive plants, as well as the keeping of livestock for eggs, milk, , wool, or other products’ (LOVELL 2010: 2501).

7

b) Food Initiatives

Food initiatives comprise among others community supported (CSA) and food cooperatives. CSA is a production concept that connects the producer with the consumer. At the beginning of the season members buy shares in the and in return, they regularly receive a part of the food produce throughout the harvest period. Hence, the growers and the consumers, both, share the risks and rewards of the food production. Usually, many of the members also support with farming activities on the farm. This decentralized, local food production model allows growers and consumers a direct relationship and to provide mutual support (USDA n.d.).

‘A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise’ (Web2). In a food cooperative members decide on a democratic basis, which kind of food and from which origins they collectively purchase their food. Their decision-making process is usually based on self-established guidelines such as to purchase primarily local, organic and/ or fair trade food (ibid.). c) Reusing Initiatives

Repair and recycling initiatives can be assigned to the , which is an approach that seeks to extend the lifecycles of products in order to decrease the consumption of new products and lower waste levels. It is a counter-movement of our contemporary highly consumptive and throw-away culture demanding, on the one hand, massive resource extraction and, on the other hand, generating enormous waste levels. Those projects are usually small-scale and initiated among others by libraries, community centers, churches or small companies for citizens to fix broken items (often electronics) (GUNTER 2013). d) Independent Spaces

Independent spaces are particularly associated with Dublin, which have been emerging in response to the neoliberal urban development – specifically the privatization of urban public space and urban life itself. Members of independent spaces are dissatisfied with the diminishing social, cultural and working opportunities of urban life and, thus, organize events and activities such as concerts, exhibitions, workspaces, workshops, gardens and political discussions. Usually, the members’ intentions are only little political. Instead, participants seek to create more social space in a city that is increasingly based on economic development and financial investments (BRESNIHAN & BYRNE 2015: 40). e) Sharing Initiatives

Sharing activities can be assigned to the sharing economy and often take place on online platforms that directly connect owners and renters with each-other. This approach is commonly used for objects that are quite expensive and underused by the owner (Web3). Airbnb and Uber are popular examples of the sharing economy, but in the context of this

8

research project solely initiatives operating on a small-scale, local and non-profit level are considered. f) Other Initiatives

Further initiatives that do not match the above criteria are eco-villages, transition towns and local currencies. An eco-village can be defined as a ‘human-scale, full-featured settlement in which human activities are harmlessly integrated into the natural world in a way that is supportive of healthy human development and can be successfully continued into the indefinite future’ (GILMAN 1991). Principal features are based on social and ecological values such as living in an intimate community and in an eco-friendly way (e.g. avoid waste and high consumption levels, use renewable sources). Hence, following a path towards sustainability is central to members of eco-villages (ibid). Transition towns are similar community-level sustainability initiatives that seek to lower , increase local resilience and to ‘build ways of living that are more connected, more enriching and that recognize the biological limits of our planet’ (HOPKINS 2008: 8). Globally, there are now about 450 official communities that follow the approach (HOPKINS 2008: 12). Community currencies ‘are a subset of complementary currencies that are tied to a specific, demarcated and limited community. […] [It] is designed to meet the needs of this defined community, typically on a not-for-profit basis’ (CCIA 2015: 32). Since community currencies are often used on a small geographical, local scale, they are also considered as local currencies (ibid.).

Social and Economic Contexts

There is no particular literature on degrowth initiatives in Dublin. As it is a new field of research, the focus is to get a general understanding of the overall setting and prevalent degrowth ‘scene’ in Dublin. Particularly obstacles and challenges as well as stakeholders and potential networks – as part of the general social and economic contexts – form a focus of interest, as they might have a big influence on the emergence and development of degrowth initiatives. The overall research question asks:

 In which social and economic contexts did degrowth initiatives in Dublin emerge and how did the contexts shape the development of these initiatives?

The codes for the analysis of the interviews are ‘challenges and obstacles’ and ‘stakeholder / networks’. Moreover, expert interviews with researchers from Trinity College are conducted as they serve as valuable experts on grassroots movements and sustainability actors in Dublin. Hence, they allow deeper insights into the outside perspective on degrowth actions in Dublin.

Crisis

As discussed in chapter 2.1 one of the major peaks of the social recession is the economic crash in 2008. Furthermore, scholars claim that there is a correlation between the socioeconomic crisis and the emergence of degrowth initiatives. As the crisis is driven by a 9

neoliberal paradigm, it can be assumed that within the neoliberal urban development of Dublin, degrowth initiatives have been emerging as a response to this paradigm and the crisis. The research question is:

 Did degrowth initiatives emerge in response to the socioeconomic and / or the economic crisis 2008 and if yes, how were they influenced by the crisis?

The assumption of the correspondence between crisis and degrowth action is derived from the literature on the concept of degrowth (see for example CALVÁRIO & KALLIS 2016: 2; D’ALISA et al. 2015; THEODOROPOULOS n.d.). The codes for the analysis of the survey and interviews are ‘crisis’ and ‘context of emergence’.

Participants’ Motivations

In order to get a deeper understanding of the reasons for the emergence and development of degrowth initiatives, the following research question deals with the participants’ motivations. The analysis of the motivations is based on the sustainability framework that contains the key dimensions: social, economic and ecological sustainability (BRUNDTLAND et al. 1987). Since the degrowth concept aspires a sustainable development it is assumed that participants’ underlying motivations match these categories. The aim is to investigate if their motivations can be related to the broader socioeconomic crisis or to the economic crash 2008. A highly economic motivation concludes a relation to the financial crash 2008 due to financial pressures (e.g. unemployment, mortgage debt). Social and ecological motivations will be further determined whether the participation is motivated by direct effects of the economic crisis 2008 (e.g. more available time and to meet others due to unemployment) or rather by a broader multidimensional crisis (e.g. environmental degradation). Moreover, the local aspect plays a significant role in the degrowth concept. Therefore, a further interest is to evaluate the importance of locality and place for participants. The codes for the analysis are ‘motivation’ and ‘localism’. The research question asks:

 What motivates people to participate in degrowth initiatives?

In the subsequent chapter the methodology is designed to answer the research questions, which were formulated in this chapter on the basis of the theoretical concepts.

3 Methodology: Data Acquisition and Analysis

The main field research was conducted during a twelve days stay in Dublin from August 23rd to September 3rd 2016 within a Master course on ‘Dublin between Boom and Crisis’ conducted by the University of Bonn. Prior to the field stay the research project included a preparatory seminar and a considerable literature review on theoretical concepts and the situation in Ireland and Dublin specifically, as well as an online research on initiatives prior to the field stay.

10

3.1 Research Design

This study combines qualitative and quantitative methods as both of them have certain limitations. Hence, the combination of both is supposed to result in a higher quality of data. This triangulation (FLICK 2008: 12) of various methods enables a broader understanding of the research outcomes as the weaknesses of one method can be balanced out with strengths of the other. Figure 1 shows the underlying research design. The methods used to tackle the research questions include semi-structured interviews with experts and initiatives, semi-structured walking interviews, a standardized questionnaire used in an online survey and literature reviews.

Figure 1: Research Design (Source: authors` design)

3.2 Criteria and Sampling

In order to identify the relevant initiatives for this case study, a set of criteria was deduced from the theoretical concepts of the voluntary sector and the degrowth approach. These criteria were used to define what is regarded as a degrowth initiative within this case study. The derived defining features are:

. Spatial: local, small-scale, community-based . Organizational: bottom-up, informal, self-organizing, non-profit, volunteers . Regard to content: subsistence, alternative practices, focus on environment To be considered relevant for this study, an initiative or project would not have to fulfill all of these features, but match the majority of the criteria. After having established this defining 11

framework the empirical research began with an extensive online search for degrowth initiatives that could be found in Dublin. A broad variety of initiatives including repair cafés, co-housing, independent spaces, sharing Initiatives, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), grassroots networks, consumer cooperatives and most of all community gardens were found. Altogether 52 initiatives were discovered in Dublin in the internet search of which 33 were community gardens. Thus, community gardens are overrepresented in the study. Of course, only initiatives that have a website could be recorded. Excluding initiatives without a web presence is undisputable a methodical limit. Table 2 shows all initiatives found online that match the defined criteria. All these initiatives had been contacted by e-mail, asking if they would be interested in doing interviews and spreading the standardized online questionnaire among their members. All initiatives that answered positive were interviewed (s. table 1). In addition to the initiatives, also experts in the field of grassroots and sustainability actors in Dublin had been contacted, such as researchers working on related topics, the Green Communities Manager, the Dublin City Council and the coordinator of Collaborative Consumption. On the whole, twelve interviews could be conducted (s. table 1).

In a self-critical perspective it has to be added that we had a lack of objectivity towards the field. The research group had a very positive and affirmative attitude towards the study field and contents that deal with degrowth topics. This positionality needs to be reflected.

3.3 Semi-structured Interviews with Experts and Initiatives and semi-structured Walking Interviews

All in all, twelve interviews were conducted. During the stay in Dublin five community gardens, four initiatives dealing with alternative consumption, sharing, food and environmental issues as well as two researchers. One of the interviews took place via skype on 17th August 2016, which was in the week before the excursion to Dublin. The other interviews were held during the field stay in Dublin.

Methodologically semi-structured interviews with initiatives and experts and semi-structured walking interviews with initiatives (combined with site visits) were used to deal with the research questions. Semi-structured interviews offered the advantage to apply different flexible guidelines, which allowed a spontaneous reaction to the given interview situation (KRUKER & RAUH 2005). Accordingly, the interviews often had also narrative passages.

The method of walking interviews (EVANS & JONES 2011) offers a valuable perspective through mobility. Whenever it was possible the interviews were held while visiting the site, which means while walking through the community gardens or through the initiatives locations. That means “that both researcher and participant [can be] more exposed to the multi-sensory stimulation of the surrounding environment” (EVANS & JONES 2011: 850). Thus, a setting was created where interviewed persons could verbalize attitudes and feelings more easily in context of the site. The aimed benefit of using walking interviews is to get ‘richer’ data (ibid.). This includes taking pictures and writing observation notes.

12

Interview Partners Acronym Initiative/ Organisation/ Project Interview Method Anna Davies TCD 1 Professor at Trinity College, Conducting “Share City” Semi-structured (Research Project on Food Sharing Projects) Expert Int. Patrick Bresnihan TCD 2 Lecturer at Trinity College, worked on Independent Semi-str. Expert Spaces in Dublin Int. Elizabeth Douet CC/SEI Collaborative Consumption, Initiator of Sharing Semi-str. Expert Economy Ireland Int. Pauric Cannon, Initiative 1 Founders and Members of Food Cooperation Semi-str. Hamann, (Walking) Int. Gabrielle Lafitte, etc. Eoghan Parle Initiative 2 Founder of We Share Dublin Semi-str. Int. Barry Semple Initiative 3 Former member of Seomra Spraoi (Independent Semi-str. Int. Space) Robert Moss Initiative 4 Coordinator at Green Communities Ireland (An Semi-str. Int. Taisce) Gavin Kenny Garden 1 Leading member South Circular Road Community Semi-str. Walking Garden Int. Maeve Foreman Garden 2 Member of Mud Island Community Garden Semi-str. Walking Int. Robert Moss Garden 3 Founder of Bridgefoot Street Community Garden Semi-str. Walking Int. Eileen N.N. Garden 4 Member of Heritage Community Garden Semi-str. Walking Int. Daniele Ponzo & Garden 5 Chairperson and member of Summer Row Semi-str. Walking Michael Keigher Community Garden Int. Table 1: List of Interview partners in Dublin

To conduct the interviews, different guidelines adjusted to the interview partners have been worked out. This includes a standard guideline, which was used for all walking interviews and semi-structured interviews that were conducted with degrowth initiatives in Dublin. Additionally semi-structured guidelines individually adapted for all interviews that were held with researchers from TCD and a coordinator from Collaborative Consumption were prepared. The duration of the interviews varied and lasted between half an hour and two and a half hours.

All conversations were recorded and later on transcribed. The transcription was in all cases linguistically straightened, which means that syntactical and grammatical inconsistencies were compensated. The analysis of the interviews was carried out by a coding system. The single codes were explained in the analytical framework (s. chapter 2.5). The codes are as follows:

Deductive method:

. Crisis (economic downturn, financial crash, housing) . Motivation: ecological, economic, social, (other) . Context of emergence . Type of members . Challenges and obstacles (for initiatives) . Localism . Stakeholder / Network 13

Inductive method:

. Environmentalism Ireland / Dublin . Role of Dublin City Council (DCC) The upper codes were elaborated by a deductive method. This means that the codes were developed by the theoretical framework prior to the actual field stay (LAMNEK 1995: 316). The other two codes were inductively elaborated, which means that they were developed during the field research and deviated from composed transcripts (SCHMIDT 2010: 475). Thus, environmentalism and the role of the DCC transpired to be especially important in the Dublin context (s. chapter 4.3).

As the interviews were held with representatives of different degrowth initiatives itself and external experts on degrowth, environmental and sustainable topics in Dublin, the range of perspectives on degrowth became wider and more detailed. But methodological limits can also be determined on this selection. Perspectives from political governance actors are missing (e.g. DCC) as well as estimations of planning offices, landlords and statements from an anti-degrowth perspective. Although these stakeholders were contacted, no interview appointment could be arranged. Nevertheless, the conducted qualitative interviews enable individual explanations or contextualization, but are at the same time subjective statements, which cannot be verified as absolutely solid.

3.4 Online Survey with Participants of Initiatives

To get a deeper insight in the views and attitudes of degrowth initiatives’ members and participants, a standardized online survey was conducted. The online questionnaire was sent to all the initiatives that had been found during the online research and was furthermore spread among Facebook groups of the corresponding initiatives. The survey contained both, open and closed questions. Although a specific number of the basic population (dt. Grundgesamtheit) cannot be identified, it can be assumed that the questionnaire had been sent out to all members and participants of relevant initiatives, who have regular internet access. All in all, 87 people filled in the questionnaire during the five-week survey period. After sorting out all the questionnaires with less than 60% of the questions answered, a total sample of 72 (n=72) was considered for the further analysis with SPSS. In some cases not all 72 participants answered the question, which is indicated with ‘n=72; missing values xx’. The survey referred mostly to the participants’ level of activity, their motivations for participation, their attitudes towards degrowth statements and their experiences of the economic crash in 2008.

Nevertheless, the online survey also contains several limitations to it, which implies that the results need to be handled carefully with the appropriate contextualization in mind. First, the relatively small sample of 72 questionnaires makes it difficult to prove significant results, especially as the exact amount of the basic population is unknown. Second, as it is an online survey it is not possible to verify who was actually filling in the questionnaire. Third, it cannot 14

be retraced through which platform the questionnaire was accessed or which initiatives, that had been asked to spread the questionnaire among their members, actually did so. And finally, the method of standardized surveys can only display a very simplified picture and does not leave room for individual explanations or contextualization. Thus, the quantitative part of the research offers no statistical significance and representativeness. Therefore, this research cannot claim to be universally valid.

4 Assessing Degrowth Initiatives in Dublin: Results

The following chapter depicts the most important and most relevant results that were collected during the empirical phase of this research project. In order to answer the research questions most adequately the outcomes from the interviews and the online questionnaire are classified into the categories ‘Types of Degrowth Initiatives’, ‘Characteristics of Members’, ‘Social and Economic Contexts’ and ‘Participants’ Motivations’. Some categories are further subcategorized, mostly following the defined codes from the semi-structured interviews.

4.1 Types of Degrowth Initiatives

While the utilized criteria for degrowth initiatives have already been illustrated (s. chapter 3) it shall now be specified what kind of degrowth initiatives could be found in our study in Dublin, and also which initiatives could not be found. Altogether, notably fewer initiatives were discovered in the Dublin case study than expected. Some typical degrowth initiatives like transition towns and local currencies were not present in Dublin at all. This might be explained by looking at the understanding of environmentalism in Ireland. Concerns about nature conservation, sustainability, waste and green consumption do not seem to have played an important role in the Irish society so far, which changes only slowly among younger generations. This will be explained later on with historical and cultural reasons. It also becomes clear, however, that many people, who do participate in degrowth initiatives, have a high awareness for environmental issues and that this ideological thinking was even strengthened during the financial downturn in 2008.

15

Figure 2: Map of degrowth initiatives in Dublin city (own design & data; map based on Open Street View (Web4))

The map shows all initiatives in Dublin having a physical presence. Due to this, four initiatives that were only represented online by a website are missing on the map. Also missing on the map are 14 initiatives which are located more than three miles away from the city center. The intended purpose of this map is not to show the exact location, but the approximate position, type and spatial spread of the initiatives in the city center. By looking at the map it becomes also clear that there is a spatial concentration of initiatives in the city of Dublin, but a few more are scattered around the center.

The largest groups among the initiatives in Dublin were clearly community gardens, which represented more than half of the found initiatives. The second largest groups were reusing initiatives and food related initiatives. Initiatives that were quite rare were sharing initiatives, independent spaces or other initiatives such as cycling campaigns. Initiatives that were largely absent were transition towns, local currencies and co-housing projects (tab. 2). This is quite surprising, especially as the transition town movement initially started in Ireland in 2004 (BIERL 2015: 349; TCD 1: line 236).

16

Initiative Founding Type of Members Year Initiative Motivations Baldoyle Racecourse Community Garden Since 2013 Ballymun `Muck & Magic`Community Garden Since 2011 Blarney Park Community Garden Since 2011 Braithwaite Street Allottments ? Bridgefoot Street Community Garden Since 2014 Broadstone Community Garden Since 2012 Cherry Orchard Community Garden ? De Courcey Square Since 2009 Dunne Street Community Garden Since 2012 Finglas Community Garden Since 2006 *Fortlawn Community Garden ? Garden of Growth Since 2011 Greenhills Community Garden Since 2008 *Guerilla Gardening Dublin (online) ? Hardwicke Street Community Garden Since 2010 Heritage Community Garden Since 2011 Community Mainly social & *Millenium Community Garden ? Gardens environmental Mud Island Community Garden Since 2011 (n=33) NEC Farmer´s Hill Community Garden Since 2010 Pearse College Allottments ? Printers Garden ? Santry Community Garden Since 2010 Serenity Community Garden Since 2009 Seven Oaks Community Garden ? *Shanganagh Community Garden Since 2010 Sitric Compost Garden Community ? Sophia Housing Assoc. Community Garden Since 2007 South Circular Road Community Garden Since 2007 St. Anne´s Park Walled Garden ? Summer Row Community Garden Since 2010 Walk Community Garden ? Weaver Square Community Garden Since 2011 York Street Community Garden ? Clondalkin Community Recycling Initiative ? CRN Community Reuse Network ? Reusing Mainly Rediscovery Centre Dublin Since 2009 Initiatives environmental Repair Café Dublin Sandymount ? (n=5) *Reusing Dublin (online) ? Community Supported Agriculture Dublin ? Dublin Honey Project ? Food Economic,social & *Food Cloud (online) Since 2013 (n=5) environmental Food-Coop Dublin Since 1984 Urban Farm Since 2012 Exchange 2009 - 2014 Independent Mabos 2012 - 2014 Spaces Mainly social Seomra Spraoi 2004 - 2015 (n=3) Cooperative Housing ? Sharing *Sharing Economy Ireland Network (online) Since 2016 Initiatives Mainly economic We Share Dublin Since 2014 (n=3) Dublin Cycling Campaign Since 1993 Other Initiatives Economic, social & Grassroots Network Dublin 2001 - 2004 (n=3) environmental Green Communities Ireland ? * these initiatives are not represented in the map (fig. 2) Irish Seed Savers - Dublin Community Growers (DCG) - Stakeholder/ - Cloughjordan Ecovillage - Network Dublin Social Hop Movement - Table 2: List of Degrowth Initiatives in Dublin based on online research

17

The exact year of emergence could only be found out for 32 of the discovered initiatives via interviews and online research. Except for two initiatives, all of these 32 initiatives were founded past 2000 (fig. 3).

New initiatives founded per year (n=32 out of N=52) 8 6 4 2 0 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 3: New Initiatives founded per year (1984-2016) (own data and figure)

Many initiatives emerged in the years following the economic crash in 2008. This indicates that the crash had a rather fostering impact on the emergence of degrowth initiatives in Dublin which can be explained by the additional free time people had on their hands due to unemployment and by the growing availability of vacant spaces which could be used for initiatives.

4.2 Characteristics of Members

Following the research question of who the people actually are who participate, one has to keep in mind that they vary as individuals and cover a wide range of different types of people. Degrowth initiatives persist of a manifold mix of characters. This became clear as many interviewees found it difficult to describe the members of their initiative, emphasizing that it is a wide variety of different people and that everyone is welcome to join (Initiative 2: line 264f.; Initiative 4: line 66; Garden 2: line 15; Garden 4: line 120). Nevertheless, it can be stated that participants did rarely belong to the ‘working class’ and were mostly not unemployed, which indicates that people under financial pressures are not necessarily the ones participating in degrowth activities. Rather people with a more stable background and higher education get involved with the degrowth initiatives, which diminishes the importance of economic motivations. Financial difficulties do not seem to be a driving factor for degrowth activities.

In general, only three attributes sticking out could be distinguished. The members would rather have a middle class background, an alternative mindset and a transitory nature. Above that, they also have in common that they are mostly volunteers, who participate in degrowth initiatives in their leisure time. Many of them would help out for a short period of time and then move on, due to different reasons such as education, family or employment.

The first attribute that stood out during the interviews was that many interviewees described the participants of the initiatives as ‘middle class people’ (TCD 2: line 133f.; Garden 3: line 261; Garden 5: line 498 ff.). When trying to confirm this with the socio-demographic data from the online survey, it depends of course on the definition of ‘middle class’ and the thereof 18

related variables. Considering the limited extent of this paper, we will here only refer to education, income and occupation as variables related to the ‘class’.

Participants' occupation (n=72) Working full-time 4% 4% 4% 3% Working part-time Schooling / training (full time) 36% Self-employed 14% Home duties Unemployed 20% 15% Retired Other

Figure 4: Participants` occupation (own data and figure)

Participants´highest level of education (n=72) 0%

26% First-level education completed Second-level education completed

Third-level education completed 74%

Figure 5: Participants` level of education (own data and figure)

Household income per year (n=72; missing value=2 ) 25 22 21 20 12 15 10 10 5 3 2 0 Less then 10.000 € to 25.000 € to 50.000 € to 75.000 € to 100.000 € or 9.999 € 24.999 € 49.999 € 74.999 € 99.999 € more

Figure 6: Participants´ household income per year (own data and figure) Looking at the socio-demographic data from the survey the statements from the interviews can be reaffirmed as the majority of the participants is well educated with no one stating to only have a primary education, employed and earns a fairly sustaining income (fig. 4, 5, 6). This does also explain why economic motivations are not that important for the participation in degrowth initiatives, which will be further elaborated in chapter 4.4.

Second, another essential attribute of members of degrowth initiatives mentioned during the interviews is a certain mindset, which was described as being very thoughtful and creative (TCD 2: line 136 ff.).

‘I suppose that many people who are joining would be generally the once who are quite thoughtful, have thought about the environment and thought about the way the world

19

works and have thought about alternative ways of being […] I suppose people who like to think for themselves.’ (Initiative 2: line 60 ff.)

‘I think they are generally people who are quite thoughtful, people who make their own decisions and who are not influenced too much by mainstream.’ (Initiative 2: line 266 f.)

So, the participants are seen as rather reflective and critical thinkers, who question the common way of living and search for alternatives to the mainstream. In addition to that, participants described themselves as ‘not serious career orientated” (Garden 4: line 286).

‘We all feel that there is something slightly wrong with the way people are living certainly in the West and that everything is so fast paced and everybody is so into material stuff and all that kind of thing. It is nice to be around people who don’t feel that and to know that you are not the only one. You are not crazy for thinking that actually, I don’t really want to make lots of money’ (Garden 4: line 289 ff.)

Although these statements concerning the participants´ mindset might be slightly idealistic, they are still meaningful for the self-perception of degrowth initiatives. Therefore it is essential to include their views when characterizing the members of degrowth initiatives.

4.3 Social and Economic Contexts

Degrowth initiatives in Dublin are heavily shaped by several factors like peoples’ attitude towards environmentalism and socioeconomic contexts like the economic crisis in 2008. Different stakeholders influence the emergence and development of the initiatives as well as local network relationships and the historical background of environmentalism in Ireland. Additionally, degrowth initiatives have to deal with internal obstacles and challenges. The following chapter summarizes the main findings.

4.3.1 Environmentalism

The history of environmentalism in Ireland had not been considered as an important factor prior to the field research. During the stay in Dublin, however, it turned out to be essential to include the history of environmentalism in Ireland and how culture responses to the environmental consciousness in Ireland in general (TCD 1: line 237 ff.). Altogether, notably fewer and less varying initiatives were discovered in the Dublin case study than expected. One possible answer can be found in the understanding of environmentalism. It was noticed that the attitude towards the environment influences the emergence and development of degrowth initiatives. The development of degrowth initiatives even seems to be constrained by the ‘Irish’ understanding of environmentalism. According to an expert statement from one of the interviewed researchers, Irish people seem to have a cultural resistance to issues like nature conservation, environmental sustainability, waste and green consumption (TCD 1: line 240 ff.). This attitude can partly be explained by historical reasons. The historical development of environmentalism was heavily influenced by top-down governance. When Ireland was a part of the English colonial system, it was English men that claimed control of people’s land. Nowadays it is even more the gap between rural and urban population. One million of the five million Irish inhabitants live in the Dublin area. Thus, amongst some rural

20

areas the feeling of injustice and dictation by the Dubliners arose, who are in their eyes urban middle class people, who do not understand the country (TCD 1: line 243 ff.). Over the years environmentalism has not been pushed, either from the UK or from Irish government. Hence, within the Irish society caring about the environment does not seem to be as accepted and prevalent as in other countries. The negative image of environmentalism seems to constrain Irish people in their commitment within environmental projects and degrowth initiatives. Thus, people from other countries are in some cases rather driving forces within environmental initiatives. TCD 1 names the example of a transition town in

Cork, an international network establishing sustainable communities (Web5), where people from other countries shape environmental activities:

‘Immigrants who are there, who come from Germany, who come from Britain, who want to go to this idyllic quiet rural place to get away from the rat race and all these things rather than it is the kind of indigenous population, who is leading these kinds of things. Not to say that there aren’t indigenous environmentalists in Ireland, but it is a different landscape.’ (TCD 1: line 262 ff.)

Another example, nowadays strongly shaped by foreigners, is a food initiative in Dublin, which stands out in its singularity in the city:

‘But this place is not representative of a typical Irish landscape. And I think this is why it also attracts foreigners. So people who immigrate to Dublin from France, from Germany, the first thing, they are doing, is to ask: Okay, where am I going to buy my organic vegetables? And you look out for it and there is only one organic shop and then you go there.’ (Initiative 1, Interview 2: line 58 ff.)

According to several statements, in international comparison Ireland has never had a strong and widespread (TCD 1: line 257 ff.; Initiative 3: line 34 ff.). Therefore, indicators are missing global NGOs like Greenpeace or transition towns and the absence of local currencies in Dublin. In fact, there is Friends of the Earth as an example of an NGO in Dublin, but it does not have a local group system like one can find in the UK (TCD 1: line 259 f.). Due to negative prejudices towards environmentalism degrowth initiatives in Dublin do often not receive much support in their work (TCD 1: line 258 ff.; Garden 4: line 176 ff.).

‘Certainly, in Ireland there is not a lot of support for community groups that are involved in improving their own environment and nature. There is quite a lot of support for community voluntary groups in other areas such as sports, maybe for youth groups. But the environment, it is kind of like one of those things that people get left to their own devices. So that is one of the reasons why we set up […] [our Community] Program or why we carried on with it.’ (Initiative 4: line 19 ff.)

Furthermore, also the top-down approach to foster environmental / degrowth initiatives is not implemented comprehensively. TCD 1 states that the Irish government has not been a driver in any kind of sustainable agenda, because it might not see it ‘as a popular thing to do something around the environment, even around the ‘ (TCD 1: line 293 f.). Initiative 1 focuses on green economy approaches within the food sector and states that it is difficult to produce local, organic food in Ireland, due to the fact that there is no subsidy for small producers and organizations. A lot of Irish products cannot be certified as organic,

21

because organizations are too small and cannot afford to pay for the certification (Initiative 1, Interview 2: 70 ff.).

Although environmentalism is not prevalent today, there was a small green movement in Ireland in the 1970s and 1980s. The movement was mainly about campaigns for nuclear disarmament, against a planned nuclear power station in the South of Ireland. Among these political activists, some decided to found a food cooperative in Dublin. This context of emergence of an environmental movement is very much an exception in Dublin. Thus, there has only been a small environmental movement in Ireland so far.

Though, concerns about nature conservation, sustainability, waste and green consumption did not seem to have played an important role in the Irish society so far, there are slow changes among younger generations. Initiative 4 supposes that nowadays there has been some cultural change in thinking about the environment. This was exemplified by the rising number of gardens and of young people, who start being interested in urban gardening (Initiative 4: line 162 ff.). The quantitative questionnaire reveals a high number of young people being active in initiatives in comparison to older generations. The younger people predominate particularly in the case of urban squatting, anti-car movements, dumbster diving, CSA and food sharing (fig. 7).

Age Groups in Initiatives (n=72; missing value=9)

Urban Squatting Cycling / Anti-Car Movement Social Community Support Repair Initiative Up-Cycling Initiative Co-Housing Independent Spaces CSA Guerilla Gardening Community Gardening Swap Meetings Food Sharing Car Sharing Bike Sharing 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

20 or younger 21 - 40 Years old 41 - 60 Years old 60 or older

Figure 7: Age groups in degrowth initiatives in Dublin (own data and figure)

Although there is a growing interest in environmentalism some participants mention that the in context of the economic crisis, environmental topics in degrowth initiatives became in some cases less important. Besides daily pressures that are particularly present in Dublin, like low incomes, debts, unemployment or long working days, there seemed to be no time to consider environmentalism (Garden 4: line 326 ff.; Initiative 3: line 40 ff.):

22

‘Rents in Dublin are worse than they ever were before the crash. So there is so much pressure on people in that regard, there is almost no time to think about the environment.’ (Garden 4: line 306 ff.)

This statement contradicts the existing and assumed growing consciousness for environmental matters in context of the crisis. However, the majority of the participants mentioned a high awareness for environmental issues also within their initiatives and that this ideological motivation has even been strengthened during the financial downturn in 2008 (s. chapter 4.4). However, issues that come with the crisis can shape the development of degrowth initiatives very differently. The next chapter will focus on the fostering scopes of the crisis on degrowth initiatives.

4.3.2 The Economic Crisis 2008

Whilst the economic crisis did have an influence on the emergence and development of degrowth initiatives, its impact was somewhat different than expected. There was a significant increase of degrowth initiatives after the economic crisis in 2008 (fig. 3). A big upsurge could be found especially in the number of community gardens and participants since the crisis in 2008 (Initiative 4: line 425 f.). A list of community gardens published by a gardening guide for Dublin (Web6) registered only two gardens in 2004. In 2011 there were already 26. In general, the economic crash fostered the development of degrowth initiatives. Therefore three main scopes can be named: space, time and social and economic impacts.

Spatial impacts of the crisis

Through the economic crash free space for the development of degrowth initiatives could be provided, as many planned construction projects could not be realized due to a lack of finance sourcing. As a consequence vacant sites and houses remained, which could be used for degrowth initiatives. On many of these vacant spaces the DCC established community gardens (Garden 2: line 44 ff.). Gardener 1 explains the rising number of gardens on DCC’s ground and their funding situation:

‘Since the economic downturn, the amount of community gardens has exploded. But that’s due to the council. And the council is getting funding and being aware of what community gardens are. All they want is to tick a box. County council people want to tick a box and it was at that time when it has increased the number of community gardens.’ (Garden 1: line 189 ff.)

In the cases of two community gardens the DCC had stopped social housing programs or other plans, so instead of apartments there were now vacant spaces available for community gardens (Garden 2: line 44 ff.; Garden 3: line 30 ff.). So right after the crisis it was easy for initiatives to access spaces due to low rents and vacancy (TCD 2: line 50 ff.). This led also to the increase of many independent initiatives, focusing on art and music events during the years 2010 and 2011.

23

Time

As the unemployment rate rose with the crisis, many people lost their jobs and had much more free time on their hands, which they could contribute to degrowth initiatives. Some interview partners see it as a consequence of the crisis that people, who were living in the city apartments without a garden and were having free time due to unemployment, would more likely start to be active in urban gardening initiatives (Garden 4: line 314 ff.; Initiative 4: line 174 ff.). This accords with the online questionnaire, where participants specified to feel a positive impact of the crisis by having more free time on their hands. 24.7% felt a positive impact and 7.2% a very positive impact on their recreational time (fig. 8).

Aspects of Life affected by the Economic Crisis in 2008 in % (n=72)

SOCIAL Social Contacts 5,9 16,2 61,8 13,2 2,9 Ideological Beliefs 16,2 19,1 45,6 11,8 7,3 Family Situation 2,91,5 72,1 19,1 4,4 Available free time 7,2 24,7 50,8 13 4,3

ECONOMIC Financial Situation 02,9 36,8 36,8 23,5 Employment 3 4,5 44 34,9 13,6 Housing 4,5 6 52,2 25,4 11,9

SOCIO-ECONOMIC Education 10,4 11,9 65,7 9 3 Health Status 1,52,9 69,1 20,6 5,9 Social & Public Service 1,4 7,4 47,1 30,9 13,2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

very positive impact positive impact no impact negative impact very negative impact

Figure 8: Aspects of Life affected by economic crash 2008 (own data and figure)

Ideological, social and economic impacts

Figure 8 shows that impacts of the crisis on social contacts were also perceived positively. These positive impacts of the crisis can be seen in relation to the participation rate of degrowth initiatives. The crisis entailed high unemployment and people who lost their jobs felt isolated and were looking for opportunities to be part of a social project to keep in touch with others. TCD 2 names the desire of people to be together in more social ways, ‘which before the crisis maybe had been more difficult, and after crisis became more possible’ (TCD 2: line 118 f.). Furthermore, TCD 2 supposes, that austerity policies strengthened the emergence of communing. Financial pressures drive people to rely more on friends, family and on social support (TCD 2: 204 ff.). It also enables people ‘to do things separate from wage labor and separated from state funding’ (TCD 2: line 212).

In addition, the economic crisis had a positive impact on people’s ideological and sustainable thinking. Figure 8 shows the positive impact of 16.2% (very positive) and 19.1% (positive), 24

which was given to the ideological beliefs of the participants. Several interview partners also think that the crisis has changed the way of thinking and the way of looking at things, as well as it led to a rising awareness towards environmentalism, sustainability and community (CC/SEI: line 147 ff.; Initiative 1: line 29 ff.). Gardener 5 mentions that

‘the economic recession brought some interest in this, in growing food and checking where the food comes from and getting involved in community things - because before, everybody was rich. So nobody cared about gardening or this sort of community thing.’ (Garden 5: line 157 ff.)

From an economic perspective two things can be stated in relation to the crisis: on one hand, people’s attitude might get positively influenced towards sharing initiatives, due to a worsened financial situation. A sharing initiative mentioned: ‘So, I think definitely with there being less money around people were forced to think about different ways of doing things’ (Initiative 2: line 152 f.). On the other hand, due to financial shortages, people were forced to spend their money more consciously. Having less money could have undermined ideological beliefs in some cases. For example, shopping organic food in Ireland is more expensive than buying conventional products. So the food cooperative assumes that due to the crisis they lost at least some of their participants:

‘there might have been some people that stopped shopping in the coop, when they started having less money. But there were quite some people that kept coming here, because they were more committed to the aims of the coop.’ (Initiative 1, Interview 2: line 178 ff.)

4.3.3 Obstacles and Challenges

A major obstacle degrowth initiatives in Dublin face is a lack of volunteers and specifically of people, who are committed to be involved on a regular and long-term basis (Garden 2: line 92 ff.; Garden 4: line 176 ff.; Garden 5: line 78 ff.; Initiative 4: line 99 f.). This challenge can be linked to the current status of Western societies, which strive for economic prosperity and material values. Social relations diminish, which leads to a socioeconomic crisis. People have to cope with high pressures in terms of formal work and adequate housing and might have less time for community and voluntary work.

Community gardens, in particular, complain about a high fluctuation. Assumed reasons for a low volunteer commitment are a lack of time of people to get involved in community initiatives, but also engaging volunteers complain about a limited time budget for volunteering activities due to their formal job and family (Garden 4: line 61 ff., 179 ff.). This, however, contradicts with the findings of the questionnaire where the majority of people indicated to be active in degrowth activities at least once a week or even daily. As stated above, the economic crash 2008 led to high unemployment and the number of initiatives and participants increased during that time, as unemployed people had more time and many of them felt lonely and aspired to participate in social activities. This trend seems to have reversed again:

25

‘It is now that there are jobs coming back again and house prices are going right back up again and rents are going right back up again and suddenly all those pressures are back on again’ (Garden 4: line 318 ff.).

A statement of the initiator of a sharing initiative reinforces the view of this trend that formal and economic principles dominate over social aspects, which is also addressed by degrowth advocates as stated in the theoretical part. The initiator highlights that there is a big problem in our society in regards to the striving for consumption and the negative relationship towards sharing and asking for help (as a reason why not more people sign up for his initiative). This can be associated to an overall decline of social values such as communality and reciprocity. The initiator claims that:

‘People are so used to not sharing. You know, people in their mind just think you have to buy things and everyone has to have their own things and if you ask somebody for something you are being greedy or being scabby or lazy.’ (Initiative 2: line 113 ff.)

A further obstacle is the short-term nature of initiatives due to short tenure contracts, which impedes them to establish themselves or to make any long-term plans for the future, as their existence usually remains uncertain (Initiative 4: line 226 ff., 415 f.). This leads to a nondurable and unsettled capacity of degrowth initiatives, which makes them very transient. Nevertheless, the number of initiatives is altogether rising, especially the ones of community gardens. Though many initiatives struggle to get enough volunteers because citizens seem to have less free time due to rising personal pressures, the overall number is still growing.

The situation is specifically uncertain for initiatives that are located in very attractive areas for private investors and for initiatives that are set up on vacant spaces, which are actually assigned to housing (Garden 2: line 21 f.; Initiative 4: line 343 ff.; TCD 2: line 86 ff., 101 ff., 364 ff.). Especially due to the current crisis of homelessness and surging property prices in Dublin the futures for them are very uncertain. The statement of TCD 2 highlights the constant struggle of bottom-up degrowth initiatives with neoliberal urban development strategies and the impacts of the economic crisis in 2008:

‘It’s becoming completely like anywhere else in the city and that space [the site of an independent space] is going to generate a lot of rent. That’s what it was all about. It’s terrible’ (TCD 2: line 364 ff.).

Moreover, the financial situation and funding as well as their dependence on the DCC are basic problems that determine the development for many initiatives (Garden 4: line 104 ff.). The funding amount given by the DCC is usually very low, so community gardens depend on other financial resources such as (infrequent) funds by Agenda 21, the local bus company, nearby shops or the football stadium (Garden 2: line 26 ff.; Garden 4: line 68 ff., 106 ff.; Garden 5: line 9 f.). Garden 4, for instance, stresses that you need to be recognized as a well-established and lasting initiative by the DCC and sponsors in order to receive potential funds. This is a very challenging task when being a small initiative with limited resources (Garden 4: line 227 ff.). Overall, the DCC plays a significant role for many degrowth initiatives, which will be explained more closely at the beginning of the following section.

26

4.3.4 Stakeholders and Networks

As stated before, the results reveal a connection between the economic crash in 2008 and the rise of degrowth initiatives. This can further be explained by changing policies and measures of the Dublin City Council (DCC). The DCC is very decisive for the development of degrowth initiatives in Dublin, as it provides funding and vacant public sites that can be used by the initiatives (Garden 1: line 54 ff.; Garden 2: line 18 ff.). The number of available public space highly increased during the crash. Before the economic crisis it had been very difficult to receive a public site for development by the DCC since free space had been scarce and property prices had been very high. During the crisis, however, the DCC gave licenses much easier to independent spaces and community gardens to access public space in order to set up their projects – basically because free space was available and there was no monetary interest by private investors that degrowth initiatives had to compete with (Garden 3: line 7 ff., 101 ff.).

Additionally, the findings show a changing role of the DCC throughout the last decade, which might also explain why more degrowth initiatives were set up on public space and the overall number rose. The DCC has recently discovered positive and reputation enhancing aspects primarily of community gardening initiatives (Garden 1: line 189 ff.). A few years ago, for example, the Dublin community gardens still had to apply for DCC funding in order to organize the annual harvest festival where all community gardens in Dublin and other related initiatives participate. Now, the DCC asks the initiatives to arrange the festival and funds them in advance. In this context, Gardener 2 of Garden 5 states:

‘They [DCC] want to improve this part of the city [Mountjoy Square] [and] they want to have an event and showcase. They want to get communities work. […] They have given us […] € in advance. Before, we had to spend it all. We know we would get it back, but we would have to spend it and now there’s actually the city that really resigns itself, which never happened. It shows you the mindset change.’ (Garden 5: 393 ff.)

The gardener further mentions the council’s green agenda as another reason for its support and willingness to cooperate, as community garden activities comply with its development plans and, thus, enables them to ‘tick that box’ (Garden 5: line 417 ff.). For the DCC it is an easy opportunity to improve neighborhoods and foster social projects without engaging in huge costs. One might even say that the initiatives get instrumentalized for the benefit of an environmental agenda or image campaign. At this point it should be mentioned that the DCC was not available for an interview. The information on the DCC’s attitude and measures was conveyed from the interviews with initiatives only, so the perspective is rather one-sided.

A further key issue was to look at other relevant stakeholders of local degrowth initiatives and their relationship. The results show that there are collaborations between similar initiatives, but also between different types of degrowth initiatives in Dublin and in Ireland (Garden 2: line 280; Garden 3: line 210 f.; Garden 5: line 202 f.; 183; Initiative 4: line 49). Furthermore, some community gardens involve further stakeholders such as school children and disadvantaged people into their gardening activities (Garden 2: line 115 ff.; Garden 4: line

27

22.). Garden 3, for instance, is very motivated in engaging disadvantaged school children from the surrounding public housing area and scouts in gardening activities (line 202 f., 277 ff.).

By considering the concept of localism, the question brought up was to evaluate whether degrowth initiatives in Dublin form one community or movement as an ‘organic whole’ due to common values or whether they are fragmented initiatives situated at the same location. The findings reveal a close network of different types of degrowth initiatives in Dublin and specifically of community gardens, which concentrate in the city center. The initiatives’ interests to work together are rather based on shared – mostly social and environmental – values than on the fact that they show a joint commitment to Dublin. In general, the relationship was considered as very positive. They join forces in order to have a greater voice on a larger level. This is a significant attribute with regard to a potential societal change as pursued by degrowth actors. By collaborating and representing their interests together they can strengthen their position towards more powerful political representatives.

4.4 Participants’ Motivations

It is clear that people´s motivations to participate are very diverse and there is not necessarily a single reason for people to start being active in degrowth initiatives. Nevertheless, the following chapter tries to categorize the mentioned motivations by using the three sustainability pillars of social, economic or ecological dimensions. In the Dublin case the most important reasons for participating in a degrowth project were social and ecological motivations. So this goes along with the strive for a socioecological transformation of the society, which was put into focus by DEMARIA et al. (2013: 194).

When looking at the outcomes from the online survey, the listed motivations are sorted in four blocks (fig. 9): the first block shows social motivations, the second ecological motivations, the third economic motivations and the fourth block lists motivations which can be related to enhancing a regional focus in the sense of localism. The graphic does not yet distinguish between different types of initiatives or participant groups but rather gives a more general overview.

28

Participants´ Motivation (n=72)

SOCIAL Being part of a community 61,4 31,4 4,32,9 Working with people from different backgrounds 36,2 36,2 16 11,6 Creating urban independent spaces 33,9 29,4 23,5 13,2 Sharing knowledge & learning new skills from others 52,1 31 12,7 4,2

ECOLOGICAL Reducing waste & the use of resources 75,7 21,4 2,90 Being in touch with nature 53,5 31 11,3 4,2 Thrive for environmental sustainability 80 15,7 2,91,4

ECONOMIC Raising awareness about problems of … 58 23,2 13 5,8 Searching for alternative ways of living 54,3 31,4 10 4,3 Spending less money e.g. on food or consumption items 26,1 33,3 29 11,6 Protest against established neoliberal system 36,8 23,5 16,2 23,5

LOCAL Getting to know people from my area 37,7 33,3 23,2 5,8 Enhancing regional identity 22,3 20,9 26,9 29,9 Opportunity for active participation in urban politics 24,6 27,6 26,1 21,7 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

very important important not important not important at all

Figure 9: People´s motivation to participate in degrowth activities (own data and figure)

The most important motivations seem to be the ‘thrive for environmental sustainability’ as well as ‘reducing waste and the use of resources’, with more than three quarters of all answers rating both reasons with ‘very important’ (fig. 9). Those two motivational reasons can both be ascribed to the category of ecological motivations. In the interviews on the other hand, the most prominent motivations stated were social factors and the sense of belonging to a community. While ‘local’ motivations were also referred to in the interviews, they can be identified as the least prominent ones among the participants in the online survey.

4.4.1 Social Dimension

The social dimension of degrowth initiatives seems to be the most significant motivational reason for people to participate in such an initiative, as it was mentioned in nearly all the interviews (TCD 2: line 117 f.; Garden 2: line 130; Garden 4: line 75 ff.; Initiative 2: line 8 f.). Thereby, the main benefit appears to be the sense of community building through different people coming together with the same ideas and values, whilst often from different backgrounds:

‘It’s something for the community as well. You know, if it wasn’t here, you wouldn’t meet half the people, or people wouldn’t interact as much. […] I think the social is as important as the growing and the eating. […] there is lots of people working in the garden that I would never have gotten to know otherwise because they are a different generation.’ (Garden 2: line 105 ff.)

29

People participate to meet and to get to know other people. This sense of being part of a community was rated as a very important motivation by more than 61% of all participants in the online survey and another 31% rated it as an important motivation (fig. 9). For some, a lack of social contacts was explicitly mentioned as a primary starting point to get engaged in a degrowth activity:

‘For all that I am concerned, to sit around having tea and coffee and eating bickies is absolutely as important as anything else that goes on here for me. At the time when I started here I was working one day a week and I was on my own, so I really wasn’t seeing people so that´s why I wanted to do something that got me out and meeting people.’ (Garden 4: line 213 ff.)

This was also mentioned as a motivational reason not only to participate in a project but even to initiate one. A brought up motivation for setting up a garden was to create a space for people, who might feel isolated socially for various reasons, one of them being economic pressures due to unemployment (Garden 4: line 88 ff.). Also sharing initiatives include community aspects in their main motivations. They state that ‘it [sharing] also improves communities because the connections you make with people when you are sharing things is really what community is all about’ (Initiative 2: line 8 f.).

In the case of community gardens it was also stated that some of the gardens are put up much more as a community opportunity rather than a productive garden (Garden 5: line 254 f.). Many of the gardens are located in rather rough areas with a lot of unemployment, criminality and anti-social behavior problems around them. On the one hand, this is because in those areas many vacant spaces are available that would otherwise just be used as dumping sites or vandalism. On the other hand, though, the gardens try to offer community facilities where people from the neighborhood can get involved in. However, many gardens do not succeed in involving the surrounding working class people in gardening, which was already mentioned above.

4.4.2 Ecological Dimension

Whilst in the survey the ecological motivations appeared to be the most prominent ones, as stated earlier, ecological reasons also played an important role in the interviews. Taking care of the environment was mentioned as a motivational reason in several interviews (Garden 1: line 109 ff.; Garden 5: line 345 ff.; Initiative 2: line 6 f.; Initiative 4: line 169 f.). Obviously, ecological motivations were especially important for gardening projects, as they work directly with nature. Thereby, growing without the use of chemicals was the most prominent issue. While the organic aspect is in some community gardens even part of the constitution, they are generally not organic certified as that would be too expensive and not worthwhile for a small independent community garden (Garden 5: line 345 f.).

‘I suppose it would be to be sustainable, to garden and to grow organically. To recycle where possible or to work with nature as opposed to against nature. To work with nature and have nature helping you grow things rather than spraying chemicals all over.’ (Initiative 4: line 54 ff.)

30

Growing, gardening and producing one’s own local and organic food ranged among the top environment-related motivations. Almost 85% rated ‘being in touch with nature’ as an important reason to participate in degrowth initiatives (fig. 9). This also goes together with a need for green spaces and parks, which are quite rare in Dublin especially in the areas where community gardens are located (Garden 1: line 82; Garden 3: line 54 f.).

‘For me I like sustainable, I try to eat organic food. You know I try to recycle everything I have. But that wouldn’t be a core, well I wouldn’t say that it is not a core value, it’s not what brings us together. The garden, growing is the main aspect.’ (Garden 1: line 114 ff.)

But also critical changes of thought and attitude towards the environment play a key role as a reason to participate in degrowth projects, which can be related to a rising awareness for environmental issues as was discussed in Chapter 4.3.1. It was stated that the attitude towards the environment changed due to the dominance of major topics such as and other environmental concerns including the issue of food miles and food sovereignty (Initiative 4: line 171 f.). So people started asking questions like ‘Why is my supermarket selling me food from a totalitarian regime whose citizens are starving to death?’ which had an impact on their attitude towards urban and local growing (ibid.). To look after the environment goes together with the vision of a better place to live in (Initiative 2: line 68 f.). Here, the thrive for a rather local (organic) food supply is both ecologically and politically motivated. Therefore, the borders between ecological and social or even political reasons get blurred and cannot easily be separated artificially for analytical purposes.

4.4.3 Economic Dimension

One of the assumptions derived prior to the actual research expected that the economic downturn in 2008 had an impact on peoples’ motivation to join degrowth Initiatives. From an economic perspective it was assumed that people might participate due to financial difficulties to save money or to look for alternative consumption patterns as part of a broader change of ideological thinking of the capitalist system. However, in the interviews it became clear that the economic motivations were not as important as assumed. Overall, the economic motivations did not seem to be as important as expected, which is remarkable as the degrowth concept mainly derived as an opposition to the paradigm of endless economic growth and, instead, seeks alternative consumption patterns (ANDREONI & GALMARINI 2013: 65). Though ‘with the downturn of the economy people had a lot more time on their hands” (Initiative 4: line 174 f.), which made it easier for them to find the time to engage themselves in alternative projects, it is actually not the financial aspect that predominantly motivated people to participate in these initiatives (Garden 5: line 39). ‘Spending less money on food and other consumption items’ was one of the less important motivations with only 59% of all answers rating it as a motivational reason (fig. 9). Nevertheless, the economic situation does have an influence on people’s needs, attitudes and sense of security. Therefore, in one interview the economic situation was linked to the need for community and safety that was found in an alternative initiative:

31

‘In my opinion […], it might be a correlation in between the want of community and then not being so wealthy or not so sure about your future. So when you are not so sure, you are less greedy and you might get an interest in community things. That’s my idea at least.’ (Garden 5: line 172 ff.)

Whilst especially the community gardens hardly named strictly economic motivations, sharing initiatives consider the economic system as a contributing factor. They take different forms of economic thinking, e.g. the , into account:

‘The more you do in the gift economy the less you have to do in the financial global economy. If you could do it gradually, because if we are to say change from this global economic system we have now more of a gift economy, it’s not just going to change. It is going to be a very gradual thing.’ (Initiative 2: line 315 ff.)

Considering different economic systems, this statement even implicates an ambition for a change or transformation. There is a quest for a way ‘that people can get what they need in the society but without having to rely on money’ (Initiative 2: line 20 f.). This opposition against money was also a factor considered in independent spaces, which offered space for a variety of ‘things which weren´t subject to having to pay money, that wasn’t exclusive’ (TCD 2: line 127 f.). They were created by people, ‘who wanted just be with other people in a different way that wasn’t based on a certain kind of commercial logic’ (TCD 2: line 15). So, economic enhancement is here seen as an opposing factor to degrowth initiatives. There should be spaces accessible to people without economic or financial barriers. Altogether though, the economic motivations rather played a minor role for the people to participate.

5 Conclusion

The results of the conducted research project in Dublin reveal that the emergence and development of small-scale degrowth initiatives can indeed be related to the economic crisis in 2008. Whilst the crisis did have an influence on the emergence and development of degrowth initiatives, its impact was somewhat different than expected. The economic crash fostered the development of degrowth initiatives through three main scopes. First, it provided free space for the development of degrowth initiatives as many planned construction projects could not be realized due to a lack of finance sourcing, thus leaving vacant sites and houses behind, which could be used for degrowth initiatives. Second, as the unemployment rate rose with the crisis, many people lost their jobs and had much more free time on their hands, which they could contribute to degrowth initiatives. And third, going along with the high unemployment, people who lost their jobs felt isolated and were looking for opportunities to be part of a social project to keep in touch with others. What could not be confirmed was the presumption that the economic crash would foster degrowth initiatives, because people were looking for consumption alternatives due to financial pressures.

Instead, social and environmental motivations play a much larger role, which can be related to the economic crash itself and to the broader multidimensional crisis of contemporary Western societies. Crucial motives for participating in degrowth initiatives, which were stated in the interviews and the questionnaire, are the pursuit of social belonging, the sense of

32

community and environmental concerns. These social and environmental values were partly enforced by the crash in 2008.

Another significant finding is that degrowth initiatives in an urban environment can have an impact on the urban landscape and the city government decision-making. For a certain part they create social urban space that the political sphere fails to provide in times of a retreat of the social welfare system and austerity. Degrowth initiatives include disadvantaged people and school children into their activities and seek to involve marginalized people as well. This can be regarded as a positive phenomenon, but can also imply that politicians rely on those self-initiated civil society measures resulting in further social service provisions cuts. In addition, they might use these initiatives such as community gardens for their own purposes as they positively contribute to the urban development and to their environmental agenda. The outcomes of the study also demonstrate the instability of these initiatives due to their high dependency on decisions by governmental actors and tenure insecurity. To a certain extent degrowth activities have led to changing attitudes of political actors, but the long-term effectiveness remains very uncertain. A further finding is the close, local and national network between degrowth initiatives in Dublin and Ireland, which strengthens their position towards political representatives and might contribute to a potential socioecological change of the society.

In summary, the emergence and development of grassroots degrowth initiatives of the voluntary sector in Dublin can be related to the economic crisis in 2008. Since social and environmental motives dominate over economic/ financial ones, the interconnection should also refer to a broader multidimensional societal crisis. The findings of this case study make an important contribution to the existing literature on bottom-up degrowth initiatives and affirm the presumption that degrowth initiatives emerge in times of crisis.

A limit of this research project is that it merely deals with small-scale, informal initiatives of the civil society (voluntary sector). One of the essential degrowth paradigm is the striving for an alternative model to the current money based capitalist system. It is clear that degrowth initiatives on a local scale cannot enable such a big change. The suggestion for future research is, hence, to include degrowth initiatives at various scales as well as the (more powerful) economic and political sector into analysis. This allows getting a more comprehensive picture of the complex social, economic and political contexts and the initiatives’ potentials to contribute to a societal transformation. A further limitation is that the focus is predominantly on the link between degrowth initiatives and times of crisis. In order to get a deeper understanding of these initiatives, future research should comprise the emergence and development of degrowth projects during other times (e.g. boom) and should further involve countries for comparative reasons that were not affected as much by the financial crisis in 2008 such as Germany.

33

List of References

ANDREONI, V. & S. GALMARINI (2013): On the Increase of Social Capital in Degrowth Economy. In: Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 72, pp. 64-72.

BELL, S. & C. CERULLI (2012): Emerging Community Food Production and Pathways for Urban Landscape Transitions. In: Emergence: Complexity and Organization,14(1), pp. 31-44.

BIERL, P. (2015): Nachhaltige Kritik? Geschichte und Perspektiven der Postwachstumsökonomie. In: Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialtheorie und Philosophie, 2(2), pp. 344-370.

BRESNIHAN, P. & M. BYRNE (2015): Escape into the City: Everyday Practices of Commoning and the Production of Urban Space in Dublin. In: Antipode, 47(1), pp. 36- 54.

BRUNDTLAND, G.; KHALID, M.; AGNELLI, S.; AL-ATHEL, S.; CHIDZERO, B.; FADIKA, L. & M. SINGH (1987): Our Common Future ('Brundtland Report').

CALVÁRIO, R. & G. KALLIS (2016). Alternative Food Economies and Transformative Politics in Times of Crisis: Insights from the Basque Country and Greece. In: Antipode, (n.d.), pp. 1-20.

COMMUNITY CURRENCIES IN ACTION (CCIA) (2015): People Powered Money: Designing, developing & delivering community currencies. London: New Economics Foundation.

D’ALISA, G.; FORNO, F. & S. MAURANO (2015): Grassroots (economic) Activism in Times of Crisis: Mapping the Redundancy of Collective Actions. In: Partecipazione e conflitto, 8(2), pp. 328-342.

DAVOUDI, S. & A. MADANIPOUR (Eds.) (2015): Reconsidering Localism. New York: Routledge.

DEMARIA, F.; SCHNEIDER, F.; SEKULOVA, F. & J. MARTINEZ-ALIER (2013): What is Degrowth? From an Activist Slogan to a Social Movement. In: Environmental Values, 22(2), pp. 191-215.

EASTERLIN, R. (1974): Does Economic Growth improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence. In: Nations and households in economic growth, 89, pp. 89-125.

EVERSBERG, D. & M. SCHMELZER (2016): Über die Selbstproblematisierung zur Kapitalismuskritik. Vier Thesen zur entstehenden Degrowth-Bewegung. In: Forschungsjournal Soziale Bewegungen, (1). Berlin: De Gruyter.

FLICK, U. (2008): Managing Quality in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

GILMAN, R. (1991): The Eco-village Challenge: http://www.context.org/iclib/ic29/gilman1 [Access on 26 Nov. 2016].

GUNTER, J. (2013): Circular Economy isn't just Recycling Products; Repair and Reuse are also vital. In: The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/circular- economy-recycling-repair-reuse [Access on 26 Nov. 2016].

HOPKINS, R. (2008): The Transition Handbook: From Oil Dependency to Local Resilience. Cambridge: Green Books. 34

JACKSON, T. (2008): The Challenge of Sustainable Lifestyles. In: State of the World: Innovations for a Sustainable Economy. The Worldwatch Institute: pp. 45-60.

JACKSON, T. (2009): Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet. London, Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

JAROSZ, L. (2008): The City in the Country: Growing Alternative Food Networks in Metropolitan Areas. In: Journal of Rural Studies (24), pp. 231-244.

KALLIS, G. (2015): The Degrowth Alternative. Great Transition Initiative: pp. 1-6.

KALLIS, G., KERSCHNER, C. & J. MARTINEZ-ALIER (2012): The Economics of Degrowth. In: , 84, pp. 172-180.

KASSER, T. (n.d.): Values and Prosperity. Sustainable Development Commission: pp. 1-14.

KETTLE, P. (2014): Motivations for investing in Gardening in Dublin: A Sociological Analysis. In: Irish Journal of Sociology, 22(2), pp. 30-63.

KITCHIN, R., O’CALLAGHAN, C., GLEESON, J. & K. KEAVENEY (2012): Placing Neoliberalism: The Rise and Fall of Ireland’s Celtic Tiger. In: Environment and Planning A, 44(6), pp. 1302-1326.

KITCHIN, R., HEARNE, R. & C. O’CALLAGHAN (2015): Housing in Ireland: From Crisis to Crisis (Working Paper No. 77). National Institute for Regional and Spatial Analysis (NIRSA), pp. 1-24.

KRUKER, V. & J. RAUH (2005): Arbeitsmethoden der Humangeographie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

LAMNEK, S. (1995): Qualitative Sozialforschung. Weinheim: Beltz.

LOVELL, S.T. (2010): Multifunctional Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Land Use Planning in the United States. In: Sustainability (2), pp. 2499-2522.

MOULAERT, F. & O. AILENEI (2005): Social Economy, Third Sector and Solidarity Relations: A Conceptual Synthesis from History to Present. In: Urban Studies, 42(11), pp. 2037-2054.

PAECH, N. (2009): Postwachstumsökonomie – ein Vademecum. In: Zeitschrift für Sozialökonomie, 46(160/161), pp. 28-31.

SCHMIDT, C. (2010): Auswertungstechnicken für Leitfaden Interviews. In: LANGER, A. & B. FIEBERTSHÄUSER: Handbuch Qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft München: Juventa-Verlag, pp. 473 – 486.

SCHNEIDER, F.; KALLIS, G. & J. MARTINEZ-ALIER (2010): Crisis or Opportunity? Economic Degrowth for Social Equity and Ecological Sustainability: Introduction to this Special Issue. In: Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), pp. 511–518.

SCHWARZ, H. & S. RAY (Eds.). (2008): A companion to Postcolonial Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

SCOTT, M.; REDMOND, D. & P. RUSSELL (2012): Active Citizenship and Local Representational Politics in Twenty-First Century Ireland: The Role of Residents Groups within Dublin's Planning Arena. In: European Planning Studies, 20(2), pp. 147-170. 35

SEYFANG, G. & A. SMITH (2007): Grassroots Innovations for Sustainable Development: Towards a New Research and Policy Agenda. In: Environmental Politics, 16(4), pp. 584- 603.

THEODOROPOULOS, M. (n.d.): Degrowth from Catalonia to Greece. Research & Degrowth: http://www.degrowth.org/degrowth-from-catalonia-to-greece [Access on 24 Oct. 2016].

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) (n.d.): Community Supported Agriculture: https://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/community-supported-agriculture [Access on 26 Nov. 2016].

Web1: Living in Ireland (n.d.): A Brief History of Ireland: http://www.livinginireland.ie/en/culture_society/a_brief_history_of_ireland [Access on 26 Oct. 2016].

Web2: International Co-operative Alliance (n.d.): Co-operative Identity, Values & Principles: http://ica.coop/en/whats-co-op/co-operative-identity-values-principles [Access on 26 Nov. 2016].

Web3: The Economist (2013): The Rise of the Sharing Economy: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21573104-internet-everything-hire-rise-sharing- economy [Access on 26 Nov. 2016].

Web4: Open Street Map (n.d.): https://www.openstreetmap.de [Access on 26 Oct. 2016].

Web5: Transition Network (n.d.): www.transitionnetwork.org [Access on 25 Oct. 2016].

Web6: Dublin Community Growers (n.d.): http://dublincommunitygrowers.ie [Access on 25 Oct. 2016].

WILLIAMS, B. (2006): Fiscal Incentives and Urban Regeneration in Dublin 1986-2005. In: Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 24(6), pp. 542-558.

36