sign in sign up
<<
Home , Urban ecology

86 (2013) 156–166

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

The potential of ‘Urban Green ’ in the resilience building of

Johan Colding a,b,⁎, Stephan Barthel a,b,c a The Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Box 50005, Sweden b Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Kräftriket 2B, Stockholm, Sweden c Department of History, Stockholm University, SE-10691, Stockholm, Sweden article info abstract

Article history: While cultural diversity is increasing in cities at a global level as a result of , is Received 30 November 2011 decreasing with a subsequent loss of services. It is clear that diversity plays a pivotal role in Received in revised form 4 October 2012 the resilience building of ; however, it is less clear what role cultural diversity plays in the resil- Accepted 21 October 2012 ience building of urban systems. In this paper we provide innovative insights on how common sys- Available online 23 December 2012 tems could contribute to urban resilience building. Through a review of recent findings on urban common property systems and the relevant literature, we deal with urban green commons (UGCs) and discuss their Keywords: Cultural diversity potential to manage cultural and biological diversity in cities. We describe three examples of UGCs, i.e. col- Cognitive resilience building lectively managed , gardens, and allotment areas, with a focus on their institutional Common property systems characteristics, their role in promoting diverse learning streams, environmental stewardship, and social– Ecosystem services ecological memory. We discuss how UGCs can facilitate cultural integration through civic participation in Social–ecological memory urban -management, conditions for the emergence of UGCs, the importance of cognitive resilience Urban systems building, and what role property-rights diversity plays in urban settings. We conclude by elucidating some key insights on how UGCs can promote urban resilience building. © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction al., 1997). Moreover, some 78% of all carbon emissions, 60% of resi- dential use, and 76% of for industrial purposes have It is often argued that there is a positive link between cultural and been accredited to cities (Grimm et al., 2008). Likewise, urban devel- biological diversity, and that reduced diversity makes the world and opment often occurs in biodiversity-rich areas (Ricketts and Imhoff, its inhabitants increasingly vulnerable to natural and human-induced 2003), with cities tending to emerge in areas with high ecosystem changes (Maffi and Woodley, 2010; UNESCO, 2008). While urban like suitable for agriculture and/or in coastal scholars claim that urbanization leads to more diverse cities with higher areas or river systems with high levels of biodiversity (Hansen et al., levels of cultural diversity (Zanoni and Janssens, 2009), the movement 2004; Ljungqvist et al., 2010). of people to cities generally leads to a reduction in biodiversity and It is often proposed that dense urban settlement is less environ- ecosystems (MA, 2005; Sala et al., 2000). This mismatch between cul- mentally burdensome than urban and suburban sprawl (MA, 2005). tural and biological diversity in cities can largely be attributed to the Although this proposition needs further scientific scrutiny (Colding, high concentration of humans, infrastructures and buildings in tiny geo- 2011a), the movement of people into more densely built urban graphic locations. However, as argued herein, it can also be attributed to areas can lessen pressure on more remotely located ecosystems. Not alackofsufficient institutions for managing cultural and biological included in such analyses, however, is that the urban space itself is diversity. likely to influence cognitive aspects related to environmental values Urban areas cover less than 3% of the Earth's terrestrial surface, of urban populations (Miller, 2005; Tidball et al., 2010). Also, urban posing strong impacts on ecosystem services both in the local vicin- studies reveal that biodiversity usually peaks at the level of ity and at considerable distances from cities. Urban inhabitants affect (Blair, 2001; McKinney, 2002). Suburban parts hold more natural and distant ecosystems through trade and consumption, with cities semi-natural land (Sukopp et al., 1979), with a progressive increase of claiming ecosystem support (including waste absorption) that natural towards the semi-rural urban fringe (Colding et al., 2006). sometimes is 500–1000 times larger than their own area (Folke et With this outward progression from centers generally follows an in- crease in the proportion of per capita land ownership (Colding, 2011b), associated with a number of property rights bundles (Ostrom and ⁎ Corresponding author at: The Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Schlager, 1996). Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Box 50005, Sweden. Tel.: +46 8 6739500; fax: +46 8 152464. In this paper we discuss how common property rights systems and E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Colding). their associated bundles of entitlements hold potential for a closer

0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.10.016 J. Colding, S. Barthel / Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 156–166 157 linkage of cultural and biological diversity in urban areas. Property 2009). In fact, parts of the world's biological diversity have come rights represent key institutions1 that link people with (Hanna about as a result of co-evolution between human cultural practices et al., 1996). Still, there exist few analyses of property rights linked to (i.e. land-use and management) and natural systems (Barthel et al., management of ecosystems and their services in cities. This is surprising 2005; Rindos, 1980), with domesticated landscapes making up the ma- considering that changes in property-rights regimes may explain much jority of terrestrial space on Earth (Baleé, 1993; Crumley, 1994; of the land-use dynamics going on in contemporary cities. The shift to McIntosh, 2000; Scarborough, 2008). private property rights is so pervasive in cities today that institutional It is often argued that cultural diversity plays a major role in creating scholars regard it is a global phenomenon (Barzel, 1997; Lee and mechanisms for innovation, providing new ways to adapt to change, Webster, 2006; Webster, 2002). As a result lands held in the public and generating knowledge and institutions to deal with the challenges, domain increasingly become privately enclosed, with considerably opportunities and threats generated by change (UNESCO, 2008). The fewer examples of lands being managed as common property systems, term cultural diversity2 as used in this paper encompasses a diversity propelling alienating processes between urban populations and local of social relations among people of different ethnic background, age, ecosystems (Colding, 2011b; Ollman, 1971). or gender, and less visible attributes such as education, technical abili- In this paper we provide innovative insights on urban common ties, socioeconomic background, personality characteristics, or values property systems and discuss their potential in contributing to urban (Milliken and Martins, 1996). By culture we use Geertz definition of resilience building, dealing specifically with cases of urban green com- culture as a system that gives meaning and significance (Geertz, 1993). mons (UGCs). Common property systems comprise systems of social Cities have been described as loci of cultural diversity par excellence arrangements that regulate the maintenance and consumption of natu- (Zanoni and Janssens, 2009). One of the very foundational and distinctive ral . Control and management rights to resources are in the characteristics of the city is the presence of cultural difference with the ‘di- hands of an identifiable community or group of users that may craft versity of proximity’ being a distinctive feature of the urban environment their own institutions in management (Berkes and Folke, (ibid). Proximity, referring to those different groups of people living close 1998; Berkes et al., 2003; Ostrom, 1990). Users in such systems manage enough to interact, facilitates face-to-face relationships that remain fun- resources collectively by way of a wide array of rules-in use, self- damental in all spheres of social . This is realized through urban imposed norms and social mechanisms (Berkes et al., 2000, 2003; space and social networks. Colding and Folke, 2001; Ostrom, 1990). We have elsewhere analyzed We are witnessing more diverse cities at a global level as the world cases of such systems in urban settings from a property rights perspec- population is growing and increasingly is moving into cities (Thorns, tive (i.e. Colding, 2011b) and their role for ecological learning and 2002; Zanoni and Janssens, 2009). Whether cultural diversity is a social–ecological memory (i.e. Barthel et al., 2010a,b,c; Bendt, 2010; “bad” or a “good” thing for a city has been debated for long in urban dis- Bendt et al., in press; Colding, 2011a). Here we draw on these studies course, with one side arguing that it stimulates creativity, innovation, and other literature findings, providing examples of what we here production and providing economic advantages (Bellini et al., 2008; refertoasurban green commons (UGCs), representing urban ecosystems Florida, 2002; Jacobs, 1961; Ottaviano and Peri, 2006; Sassen, 1994); of diverse ownership that depend on collective organization and the other that it can produce conflict and disorder (e.g. Castells, 1989; management. Roszak, 1973) and has a negative effect on economic performance We begin this paper by elaborating upon the notion of cultural and (Abadie and Gardeazabal, 2003; Alesina and La Ferrara, 2005). These biological diversity linked to cities and what role diversity plays in resil- polarized outcomes may in reality be subtler. For example, Collier ience management. We proceed by describing three examples of urban (2001) contends that cultural diversity only has negative effects on eco- green commons (UGCs), i.e. collectively managed parks, community nomic growth in non-democratic countries, and Alesina and La Ferrara gardens, and allotment areas, elucidating key institutional characteris- (2005) found that ethnic fragmentation has more negative effects on tics and their role in promoting diverse learning streams, environmental the economy in countries with lower levels of income. stewardship, and social–ecological memory in urban systems. We While cultural diversity can be both an asset and a liability for a city, discuss how UGCs can facilitate cultural integration in cities through or both at once, we agree with the view of Zanoni and Janssens (2009) civic participation in urban land-management by offering an institution- that the challenge today is to make cities socially inclusive, to re-invent al base for groups and individuals to meet and interact. We also discuss forms of interrelatedness that recognize diversity, and value it, and by some key conditions for the emergence of UGCs, the importance of ‘cog- so doing “channel its creative potential to make our cities sustainable” nitive resilience building’, and the role of institutional diversity for resil- (ibid: 21). Accordingly, cultural diversity needs to be both governed ient urban development. We conclude by summarizing the major and managed in cities in order to nurture it in productive ways. insights conveyed herein. 2.2. The Role of Diversity in Resilience Management 2. Diversity and Resilience Resilience, as applied to integrated systems of people and the natu- 2.1. Cities and Cultural Diversity ral environment, has three interrelated characteristics: (1) the amount of change the system can undergo and still retain the same controls on History reveals that cities in most part of the world have emerged function and structure; (2) the degree to which the system is capable of and continue to grow over landscapes that have been domesticated self-organization; and (3) the ability to build and increase the capacity by humans for centuries, and sometimes millennia (Crumley, 2000; for learning and adaptation (http://www.resalliance.org/). Sinclair et al., 2010). These cultural landscapes in which cities are In the resilience discourse, management of diversity per se is consid- embedded are sometimes rich in species and (Barthel et ered to be a key attribute for building resilience in complex adaptive al., 2005; Emanuelsson, 2010) and may even provide refuge for spe- systems (Berkes et al., 2003). Diversity spreads , creates buffers, cies that have become rare in other settings (Colding et al., 2006, and opens up for multiple strategies from which humans can learn in

1 By institutions is here meant the rules and conventions of society that facilitate co- 2 According to UNESCO (2008: 20) there are different levels of cultural diversity, in- ordination among people (North, 1990), made up of formal institutions (rules, laws, cluding linguistic diversity; namely intercultural diversity in the sense of differences be- constitutions), informal institutions (norms of behavior, conventions, and self- tween two (or more) cultures, and intracultural diversity referring to the differences imposed codes of conduct), and their enforcement characteristics (Colding et al., between subcultures, or cultures of different sectors of a society (e.g. men/women, dif- 2003a; North, 1990). ferent social classes) within a culture. 158 J. Colding, S. Barthel / Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 156–166 situations when uncertainty is high. In addition to functioning as insur- policies (Colding et al., 2003a; Tidball and Krasny, in press). This argu- ance, diversity also plays an important role in the reorganization and ment is in line with findings in management studies, showing that cultur- renewal processes of disturbed systems (Colding et al., 2003b), or events al diversity on skill-based dimensions such as education, occupation, that require change in social–ecological systems by creating a frame for functional background, and industry experience is positively associated creativity and adaptive capacity to deal with change in constructive with a group's ability to process information, perceive and interpret stim- ways (Berkes et al., 2003). Diversity is thus seen as key for dealing with uli, and making higher quality decisions (Milliken and Martins, 1996). and change in productive ways, with self-organization and However, diversity in groups can also increase the likelihood that group the capacity for learning and adaptation constituting important resilience members are dissatisfied and fail to identify with the group. For characteristics (Fig. 1). example, the greater the amount of diversity in a group or an organiza- The critical role of diversity and redundancy has been examined tional subunit, the less integrated the group is likely to be, with higher in many systems, e.g. genetic, human engineered, complex adaptive, level of dissatisfaction and member turnover rate (Milliken and Martins, ecological, agro-ecosystems and governance systems (Low et al., 2003; 1996). Maffi and Woodley, 2010). In biological systems diversity facilitates func- tional redundancy, i.e. if a species declines or is lost, other species provid- 2.3. Management of Cultural Diversity in Urban Systems ing the same function in the system can continue providing this function. Hence, management of many species within a single functional group The role of cultural diversity in maintaining resilience has not yet been promotes resilience by reducing the of a specific ecosystem function clearly defined, but it seems established now that variations in cultures being entirely lost in a biological community or ecosystem (Elmqvist et that manage land in sustainable ways correlates to spatial variations in al., 2003). Moreover, diversity in ecosystems promotes ‘response diversi- habitats, species as well as variations within species, which increases bio- ty’. This capacity is mainly related to the diversity of ‘functional groups’ of diversity on aggregated spatial and temporal scales (Andersson et al., species in a system, like organisms that pollinate, graze, predate, fix 2007; Barthel, 2006; Barthel et al., in review; Maffi and Woodley, 2010). nitrogen, spread seeds, decompose, generate , modify water flows, Also, as suggested in the previous section, cultural diversity appears to open up patches for reorganization, and contribute to the colonization promote the ability to build and increase the capacity for learning and of such patches (Elmqvist et al., 2004). Response diversity means that adaptation in groups. This latter function seems directly linked to the different organisms within a functional group respond differently to sharing of a common interest. The work of Elinor Ostrom on common diverse types and frequencies of disturbance. For example, if honeybees property systems, supports this line of argument, emphasizing the role are affected by a pathogen, other pollinator species not affected by the of collective choice arenas in long-enduring resource management pathogen may take over the function of pollination. In this way diversity systems by which a whole group or community of resource users shares creates redundancy in ecological systems (see Jansson, this issue). a common interest in resource management (Ostrom, 1990). For exam- Similarly, when diverse groups of stakeholders, including resource ple, when all participants share common values and interact with one users from different ethnic or religious groups, scientists, community another in a complex set of arrangements within a small community, members with local knowledge, NGOs, and government officials, share the probabilities of their developing adequate rules and norms to govern management of a resource, decision-making is claimed to be better repetitive relationships are much greater, and the cost of developing informed due to that stakeholders may be more invested in and support- monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms is relatively low (Ostrom, ive of the decisions, and more options exist for testing and evaluating 2005). Conversely, if participants come from diverse cultures, speak

Fig. 1. Key attributes of resilience. The interplay between disturbance and diversity and their relationship to knowledge systems and self-organization are key linkages for building resilience and adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems. Social change (e.g. economic recession, unemployment) can in many times be considered as a disturbance in cities, creating conditions when diversity can be crucial to deal with change in constructive ways. If the social-ecological system can self-organize and learn through making use of diver- sity (left-hand of figure), capacity to adapt to change is increased. Conversely (right-hand side of figure), when knowledge generation and self-organization do not deal with and respond to disturbance in effective ways, e.g. nurturing diversity in a system, the likelihood of pathological management increases, which can lead to loss of resilience and cultural inertia. Modified and adopted from Folke et al. (2003). J. Colding, S. Barthel / Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 156–166 159 different languages, and are distrustful of one another, the costs of devis- 3.1. Collective Management in Berlin ing and sustaining effective rules are substantially increased (ibid). That sharing an interest can be a sufficient condition for making use In the city of Berlin, there are examples of whole parks being col- of cultural diversity in cities has been suggested in the literature on en- lectively managed by various interest groups. As fiscal cuts impacted vironmental policy and . For example, Rydin and Pennington funding for public parks, local politicians began making calls for civic (2000) argue that the prospect of meeting friends who share similar engagement in management of green spaces (Rosol, 2010). While values and beliefs, and the enjoyment of collective effort with these the state owned company ‘GrünBerlin’ runs several of the major people, may be a sufficient incentive for greater public participation in parks in Berlin, civic engagement in green space management has . Likewise, Zanoni and Janssens (2009) suggest fostered an immense institutional diversity, in terms of internal that design policies for managing cultural diversity in cities should focus organization that has been not only giving rise to a variety of on promoting multidirectional flows between different groups and in- management forms for , but also providing formal dividuals, coordinating cultural encounters in cities. Defining a institutional structures for green area management on municipal common issue that binds together diverse groups and individuals is land, represented by the Burgerpark concept (Bendt, 2010). an essential part in such an approach, e.g. “an activity that is of common Burgerparks represent public parks managed by local groups of interest to the different groups” (Zanoni and Janssens, 2009:195). They residents, varying insizebetween100m2 to 30,000 m2, and having also argue that the spatial structure, e.g. a square, facilitating proximity between 10 and 100 members each. They are especially common in of groups is an essential characteristic for creating multidirectional the boroughs of Friedrichshain, Kreuzberg and Neukölln (Bendt, flows in cities. 2010). These propositions appear to be well supported in recent studies A particularly interesting form of collectively managed green addressing collective forms of green space management, indicating a spaces is public-access community gardens, or PAC-gardens (Bendt, particular promising subset of physical spaces in cities that promote a 2010; Bendt et al., in press). PAC-gardens are in public ownership, multitude of desirable social and ecological objectives (e.g. Barthel et open for anyone interested in learning to garden. Threshold for active al., 2010a,b,c; Boyer and Roth, 2006; Colding et al., 2006; Krasny and participation is absent or very low. Membership is either formally Tidball, 2009; Larsson, 2009; Tidball and Krasny, in press). Here we defined or according to ex post criteria such as residence or acceptance refer to such physical spaces as urban green commons (UGCs).Inthefol- by existing members in the group. For example, Lichtenrade Volkspark lowing we begin by defining the concept of UGCs and proceed by de- and Bürgergarten Laskerwiese are PAC-gardens run by formal associa- scribing three examples of such systems in cities. tions (vereins) with boards and chairmen. In contrast, Burgerpark Rosa Rose holds no formal organizational structure with decisions 3. ‘Urban Green Commons’: Collectively Managed Urban taken in an ad-hoc manner. In Prinzessinnengarten – a mobile organic Green Spaces urban farming garden – decisions are made by the founders of the enterprise, but in everyday practice the participants make decisions Intheliterature,theterm‘urban commons’ is surrounded by a rich on an ad-hoc basis. array of normative statements of what actually constitutes the ‘commons’, Bendt et al. (in press) combined the social learning approach with several scholars avoiding any precise definition of the term. For offered by communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) with a property example, it is often equated with public open spaces (e.g. Blomley, rights analysis, studying four PAC-gardens in Berlin. Based on exten- 2008; Campbell and Wiesen, 2009). However, the notion of commons sive fieldwork and in-depth interviews, they concluded that PAC- as “public” or as “nonexcludable” is misleading, ignoring the fact that gardens represent a clear-cut example of communities of practice, there exists a whole cadre of literature dealing with resources managed and identified four broader learning streams in them, including: under common property systems (e.g. Berkes, 1989; Ostrom, 1990). In 1) learning about gardening and local ecological conditions; 2) learn- common property systems, most rights to a core resource are vested in ing about social organization/integration and participation; 3) learn- the members of the local community or group of users. Equating urban ing about the politics of urban space (i.e. learning which arises out commons to open public places is therefore faulty as such spaces rather of negotiation and friction concerning the use and development of should be classified as ‘public realms’,i.e.alltheareasincitiestowhich space in the city); and 4) learning about social entrepreneurship. the public has open access (i.e. holds entrance-rights). Instead we employ PAC-gardens also represent a good example of place making initia- amorenarrowdefinition of urban green commons here, namely as tives in cities – a notion long propagated for in planning and architec- “physical green spaces in urban settings of diverse land ownership that ture (Gehl, 2010; Jacobs, 1961) – and during the last decade depend on collective organization and management and to which indi- viduals and interest groups participating in management hold a rich set of bundles of rights, including rights to craft their own institutions and Table 1 to decide whom they want to include in such management schemes” Property rights bundles associated with positions. fi (see more in Colding, 2011b). Source: Modi ed and adapted from Schlager and Ostrom (1992:252). Participants in urban green commons hold a number of critical bun- Owner Proprietor Claimant Authorized Authorized dles of rights (Schlager and Ostrom, 1992), including access rights, with- user entrant drawal rights, management rights, and in some cases also exclusion Access X X X X X rights to land (Table 1). The critical feature of UGCs rests on their practi- Withdrawal X X X X cal management of land rather than on land ownership per se, implying Management X X X Exclusion X X that land used for urban commons may be owned by a number of poten- Alienation X tial owners e.g. the state, a local , privately or collectively. Hence, in the following examples the right to manage land for a collec- The bundles of rights are independent of one another, but frequently held in the cumulative manner as arranged in the table. These rights encompass rights of access tive set of individuals is the most distinctive characteristic of UGCs. This (i.e. “the right to enter a defined physical area and enjoy nonsubtractive benefits”); right may be subtle, but as we later argue, carries immense significance withdrawal (“the right to obtain the resource units or “products” of a resource”); for cognitive resilience building in cities. Here, we deal with collectively management (“the right to regulate internal use patterns and transform the resource managed parks, community gardens, and allotment areas. In particular by making improvements”); exclusion (“the right to determine who will have an access right, and how that right may be transferred”); and alienation (“the right to we deal with key institutional characteristics, their role in promoting di- sell or lease either or both of the above collective-choice rights”)(Ostrom and Schlager, verse learning streams, environmental stewardship, and social–ecologi- 1996: 133). The bundles of property rights are held by individuals with different posi- cal memory in urban systems. tions, named accordingly. 160 J. Colding, S. Barthel / Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 156–166 propagated for in collaborative (e.g. Healy, 1998)to 2000). This form of gardening primarily originated as a response to improve the quality of physical places by a widening of stakeholder shortages during the transition from feudal agrarianism to urban involvement beyond traditional power elites. industrialism (Barthel et al., 2010a,b; Barthel and Isendahl, this issue). In Sweden, allotment gardens were created to help ameliorate social 3.2. Environmental Learning and Community Gardens problems resulting from mass migration from the countryside to urban areas, such as food shortages and meager living conditions Another example of collective green space management is communi- (Lindhagen, 1916). ty gardening, which depends upon collaborative efforts of a diverse set of In contrast to many community gardens, allotment gardens consti- individuals and/or interest groups to succeed (Colding, 2011b; Shinew, tute quite a stable common-property rights regime (Colding, 2011b). et al., 2004). Lands for community gardens often represent publicly or This is reflected in that leaseholds usually are written on long-term privately held vacant lots in cities where local residents grow food, basis between local allotment associations and local , flowers, or conduct urban greenery (Schukoske, 2000). In community with leaseholds up to 25 years in Sweden. Allotment gardens are charac- gardening people work together on land usually located in the terized by several characteristics typically found in common property of a city or in a low-density suburban area. Vacant-lot gardens are usually systems. The local allotment association sets up and enforces its own small in size, such as in New York City where gardens constitute 5-by-15 rules, although these need to comply with Swedish law (Barthel et al., meter lots (Schmelzkopf, 1996). Especially in the U.S., community gar- 2010a). For instance, the local association determines size and form of dens are an extremely unstable , often representing an interim cottages as well as the appearance of garden plots. Moreover, while in- use for vacant land awaiting construction. For example, less than 2% of dividual gardeners hold operational-level property rights such as “ac- the U.S. community gardens were permanent in 1999 (Linn, 1999). cess” and “withdrawal” rights (see Table 1), they also hold the right to Interestingly, lot lease durations correlate closely with the appear- “manage” their own plots relatively independently, although manage- ance of gardens, with gardens having long-term leases demonstrating ment is framed by the collective-choice rights of the association, which a sense of permanency with an of slow-growing trees, in turn holds the collective-choice right of “exclusion” (i.e. the right to perennials, lawns and features such as benches, gazebos, and brick determine who will have an access right to the plot and how that right paths (Schmelzkopf, 1996). As property rights theory would predict, may be transferred). Exclusion of outsiders is often physically embodied community residents are more willing to invest in gardens with longer in that fences or hedges usually surround areas for allotments. While leaseholds (Colding, 2011b). Of key importance for securing land for outsiders have the right to enter the common areas in most allotment community gardens in the U.S. has been the backing up by various areas (i.e. walking paths, etc.), entering individual gardens is a violation NGOs, such as the metropolitan gardening organizations (Janson subject to the law of trespassing in Sweden and is thereby subject to Waddick, 2000). Moreover, the Trust for Public Land also secures public fines in common law. land for community gardens, and helps them establish themselves As is the case in most common property systems, there exist informal legally as non-profit organizations (Linn, 1999). institutions enforced by way of social pressure such as strong norms to Community gardens have been shown to promote positive place mak- exclude pesticides and synthetic manure (Barthel et al., 2010a). The ing in cities, community empowerment and development (Saldivar- effectiveness of such norms is evident in that 91% of the gardeners feel Tanaka and Krasny, 2004), social integration and democratic values that their neighbors want them to act in accordance with them (Barthel (Glover et al., 2005; Holland, 2004; Levkoe, 2006; Shinew et al., 2004), et al., 2010a,b,c). Similar to common property systems in small-scale soci- health benefits (Marcus and Barnes, 1999), and increase of property eties (Ostrom, 1990), the small size of allotments and the high number of values (Been and Voicu, 2008). people within the same piece of land make informal institutions effective In the vast range of literature on community gardens, some recent for dealing with potential conflicts and for monitoring that rules are articles are especially interesting within the ambit of resilience theory. followed and effective sanctions meted out (Barthel et al., 2010a). For example, Krasny and Tidball (2009) found that Allotment gardens broadly represent knowledge ‘legacies’ of tradi- provides opportunities for learning that addresses multiple societal goals, tional household gardening practices, where the users' gardening knowl- including creating a populace that is scientifically literate, that practices edge has been passed on and socially retained for considerable time resource stewardship, and that is engaged in civic life. Community (Nolin, 2003). Hence, they serve as sites for conferring practical gardening education has also the potential to foster environmental knowledge of urban agriculture. As argued by Barthel et al. (2010a,b) outcomes such as environmentally responsible behaviors, opportunities allotment gardens play a critical role in retaining and transmitting collec- for unstructured time in nature, positive youth development, understand- tive memories of how to grow food in urban settings and how to manage ing of linkages between global and local food security, and gardening regulatory and supporting ecosystem services like pollination, water skills (Krasny, 2009). For instance, the and insects in gardens cycling, formation, and nutrient retention. While only individuals offer opportunities for students to observe and perform experiments, can be said to remember sensu stricto, individual memory processes thus acquiring content knowledge related to pollination. Moreover, derive from social interactions through gardening and are facilitated by community gardening involves learning about planting techniques, how supra-individual means such as sharing stories, artifacts, symbols, rituals, to tend plants, as well as collaboratively developing rules related to plot and written accounts (Barthel et al., 2010b). These collective repertoires allocation and pesticide use. This in turn provides opportunities for tend to outlive the practices that first shaped them and function together youth to become increasingly more skilled as members of a civic as carriers of experiences, practices and knowledge. Over deep-time evo- community of practice. Such contributions can include fostering biological lution, this creates, for example, locally adapted varieties of crops that and cultural diversity and ecosystem services, such as food, pollination, have co-evolved with human practices and local environmental condi- and sites for reconnecting people with nature (Krasny and Tidball, 2009). tions (Fraser and Rimas, 2010). Because of the inherent feedback loops between human actions and 3.3. Social–ecological Memory in Allotment Gardens ecological processes, we prefer to use the term social–ecological memo- ry to describe the combined means by which knowledge, experience A third example of collective green space management is allotment and practice of ecosystem management are captured, stored, revived gardening. An allotment garden contains multiple garden plots of equal and transmitted over time in allotment gardening as well as in other size, often on municipally owned land, constituting well-managed co-evolved cultural and natural management systems (Barthel, 2008; flower-, bush-, and tree rich sites that provide lot holders with vegeta- Barthel et al., 2010a). The double processes of participation and reifica- bles, fruits and ornamental flowers (Colding et al., 2006). There are cur- tion form a shared memory of a changing physical environment, linked rently around three million allotment gardens in (Björkman, to socio-economic fluctuations, and local responses to such fluctuations J. Colding, S. Barthel / Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 156–166 161

(Barthel et al., 2010a,b,c). In this sense, harnessing the power of the di- membership by way of occupation in an organization or by way of resi- verse social–ecological memories of various stewards in dency in a community. Moreover, people have different motives for par- urban settings can play an important role in the resilience making of cit- taking in voluntary , e.g. social relation building, ies since it contributes in helping renew and reorganize such systems in recreation, food acquisition, sense-of-place, therapeutic reasons, and en- times of crises (Folke et al., 2003). vironmental concerns (Andersson et al., 2007; Oddsberg, 2011; Tidball et al., 2010). In addition, the time people are willing to spend in 4. Discussion land-management activities is important to consider in order to create ef- fective participatory designs. For example, PAC-gardens involved people As was proposed earlier, a common interest can be a sufficient con- interacting on a regular basis (daily) to those rarely participating, with dition for making use of cultural diversity in cities. Moreover, the exis- some gardens having new participants coming and going continuously. 4 tence of a supporting spatial urban morphology, or arena, has been The level of boundary interaction thus varied greatly among the gardens, proposed to be critical for cultural integration to come about (Zanoni as well as the diversity of actors with which they interacted. For example, and Janssens, 2009). Here we have provided insights on collective the two gardens with more formal associational structures displayed less land management systems, i.e. urban green commons, representing boundary activity than the other two that employed looser frameworks such a combination of interest and physical spaces in cities. While we for participation (Bendt, 2010; Bendt et al., in press). have not explicitly dealt with the cultural diversity of the individuals The Berlin case study prompts questions concerning the suitability fi and/or groups partaking in land management, there are good reasons of xed institutional frameworks for participation in land management. to believe that UGCs hold considerable potential in promoting cultural In developing participatory environmental arenas in cities it may there- integration. As Bendt (2010: 8) concludes in his study of Berlin fore be important to consider trade-offs between property-rights fl PAC-gardens: “people must interact as they garden”,andmutualengage- arrangements which enable uid forms of participation and thus ment is what creates membership in communities of practice3 (Wenger, reach out to a large number of people and groups, and more formal 1998). Mutual engagement through working together does not, however, forms (e.g. allotment areas) which involve fewer people but require require homogeneity among members, but rather creates similarities as more obligations on behalf of participants and which may foster deeper – well as differences. Wenger refers to such specialization within a commu- learning and social ecological memory (see e.g. Andersson et al., 2007; nity of practice as “engaged diversity” (Wenger, 1998:73). Barthel et al., 2010a). Following Ostrom's (1990, 1996) prerogatives for In the Berlin-study by Bendt (2010), many respondents talked about building social capital, Rydin and Pennington (2000) argue that positive their parks and gardens as places where people from different back- social capital can be developed when local communities are encouraged grounds and local neighborhoods met through their interest in garden- to build up their own institutional arrangements and not have these in- ing. However, these green areas also represent community space for stitutions imposed from above. There is, however, a notable difference concerts, art performances, film screenings and workshops initiated to what degree UGCs can be viewed as self-organized stewardship sys- by the group members themselves. In this way, PAC-gardens represent tems. For example, Krasny and Tidball (2009) and Ruitenbeek and places promoting cultural integration and exchange at many levels. Cartier (2001) argue that community gardens have a tradition of PAC-gardens also bring people together around certain problems that being self-organized and self-emergent, i.e. being initiated by the stake- may arise in local neighborhoods as well as bring people with different holders themselves within the community. This is also true for the Ber- ethnic backgrounds together, with some gardeners claiming that they lin Burgerparks, having given rise to considerable high institutional and never had interacted with migrants prior to taking up gardening organizational diversity in green-space management (Bendt, 2010). In (ibid). In the Burgergarten Laskerwiese garden, for example, respon- contrast, allotment areas appear to have a considerable more rigid orga- dents mentioned how gardening involved people from both former nizational and institutional structure, likely due to their historical ties East and West Germany, giving rise to fruitful cultural exchanges, as with local governments and experiences of organizing through several well as conflicts, as these divided historical backgrounds were inter- cycles of hunger and economic depression (Barthel et al., in press-a,b). laced in the practice of developing the garden and park. Several respon- dents mentioned how the garden at times was a place where political 4.2. Conditions for the Emergence of UGCs positions were formulated and expressed, promoting learning along multiple political dimensions. It is a striking fact that the UGCs dealt with herein increase in num- Likewise, community gardens hold potential for social integra- bers during periods of socio-economic hardships. For example, European tion, such as building a sense of community among neighbors and fos- allotment areas increased substantially in numbers during the two tering positive interracial relationships (e.g. Lewis, 1992; Linn, 1999; WorldWarsaswellasinthe1930seconomicdepression(Parker, Schmelzkopf, 1996; Shinew et al., 2004). In Stockholm city, for example, 2003; Select Committee, 1998). Community gardens in the U.S. are wide- there are allotment areas having members of foreign origin in the tens ly recognized as an effective grassroots response to urban disinvestment and over (Oddsberg, 2011), indicative of what a diverse cultural setting and decay (Kurtz, 2001) and have been used to promote economic they sometimes constitute. The same is true in the U.K., where allot- development in many cities (Bonfiglio, 2009). For example, in – ments hold a high diversity of people of different age, race, and sex a city greatly impacted by the loss of job opportunities – community (Crouch and Ward, 1997; Select Committee, 1998). gardens have over time been used for the purpose of supplementing unemployed workers and their families with food supply (Warner, 4.1. Civic Participation in Urban Land-management 1987), and as a way to promote regional by in- creasing the local tax base and the number and variety of jobs available Sharing a common interest and the enjoyment of collective efforts in to local people (Bonfiglio, 2009). Since the first organized community land management appear to be a strong incentive for civic participation garden program emerged in Detroit in 1893, the city has invested heavily in environmental management of cities. For one thing, people participate in urban garden programs during periods of economic recession (Bassett, by way of free will in this activity in contrast to having formal 1981).

3 The defining elements of a CoP are (1) a ‘joint enterprise’ of vigor in learning about 4 Shared practices create boundaries in communities of practice, important for a particular enterprise (e.g. gardening), (2) ‘mutual engagement’ through which peo- learning by connecting different communities that offer learning opportunities ple bond and build social capital, and (3) a ‘shared repertoire’ of rules, jargon, and ar- (Wenger, 2000). Boundary interactions represent the frontiers where learning hap- tifacts that enable a community to reflect upon and understand its own state of pens as long as the divide between experience and competence is not too wide or development and to move forward (Wenger, 1998, 2000). too close (ibid). 162 J. Colding, S. Barthel / Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 156–166

The self-emergence of many types of UGCs is not only correlated to environmental awareness among individuals (e.g. McDaniel and periods of food shortage. Equally important is that available physical Alley, 2005; McKinney, 2002; Theodori et al., 1998). One may there- spaces exist in cities. For example, the fall of the Berlin wall and the sub- fore ask whether the majority of the population will be willing to in- sequent unification of the city created an abundance of unused urban vest in protecting something they no longer regard as directly spaces (Brachen). This was paralleled by a lack of public funds to main- relevant to their ? tain them, making local politicians more in favor of civic management of The gravity of the issue is highlighted by the fact that 2/3 of the global green spaces (Rosol, 2010). For these reasons various forms of tempo- population is projected to live in urban landscapes within just a few de- rary usage (Zwischennutzung) proliferated across Berlin as brown cades. It is therefore critical to broaden city-inhabitants' understanding fields and former industrial areas were turned into alternative usage, of their dependence on ecosystem services both inside and outside including green areas and parks that developed into community gar- urban landscapes. Hence, urban designs that make visible the links dens (Bendt, 2010). In the U.S., there also appears to be a close correla- between people and nature in cities are important to develop at larger tion between community gardening and the availability of vacant lots in scales (Colding, 2007). Urban green commons, as dealt with herein, cities (Bowman and Pagano, 1998; Schukoske, 2000). For example, a represent examples of such designs, where people in cities learn about like Detroit with ample community gardens holds up to functions in nature by way of active land management. 70,000 vacant lots, comprising about 27% of the city cover (Bonfiglio, In reference to the issue above and to the global loss of ecosystem 2009). services, it is critical to promote what we here refer to as cognitive resil- While the availability of physical urban space appears to be an im- ience building. In lack of a better term, we define cognitive resilience portant factor for the proliferation and spread of UGCs in cities, the building as the mental processes of human perception, memory and role of environmental movements (Barthel et al., in press-b; Ernstson reasoning that people acquire from interacting frequently with local and Sörlin, 2009) should not be underestimated. For example, in ecosystems, shaping peoples' experiences, world views, and values densely built neighborhoods in New York, local inhabitants have a towards local ecosystems and ultimately towards the . This long tradition of squatting vacant land awaiting construction, giving is in line with arguments to link local systems more closely to planetary rise to the Green Guerillas in the 1970s (Colding, 2011b). This envi- boundaries and the biosphere (Argüelles, 2011: 9; Folke et al., 2011). ronmental movement triggered similar squatting projects in other The notion of cognitive resilience building is closely linked to what cities throughout the world. Hence, the lack of green spaces in cities Berkes and Folke (1994) refer to as cultural capital,5 although we stress and people taking local action to change this situation is important that it involves social learning and retention of ecological knowledge for understanding the emergence of UGCs. (explicitly or tacitly) among individuals to alleviate of expe- Suffice to say, the emergence of UGCs is closely related to the reorga- riences in urban landscapes. It further builds on insights in sociology nization of cities after some kind of crises. For example, this was the case and anthropology where it is highlighted not only that cognitive frames in the of urban gardens in Cuba as a response to the food are socially situated, but also that the material world, objects and there- shortage crisis set about with the collapse of the Soviet socialist bloc in fore urban space in itself strongly influence cognitive frames (Durkheim, 1989 (Altieri et al., 1999). Prior to the crisis, urban agriculture was 1997; Halbwachs, 1926 (1950); Wenger, 1998), hence the link between virtually absent in Cuba as urban gardening was perceived as a sign of cognitive resilience building and common property rights of physical poverty and under-development. Very few of Cuba's gardeners were urban green spaces (Barthel et al., 2010a,b,c). acquainted with the small scale, highly diverse, garden techniques Designs of UGCs do not need to be confined to vacant lots, parks or that now are widely used, but through organizing they facilitated the allotment areas, but could as well be part of other built-up structures dissemination of information and knowledge, involving the education in urban areas, e.g. university (see e.g. Barthel et al., 2010c), of people on organic gardening (Altieri et al., 1999). In the complete or to promote biodiversity conservation at business/industrial sites absence of social–ecological memory of urban gardening on Cuba, it (see Snep et al., 2011). Such designs may involve volunteers in manage- would have been considerably more difficult to reinvent urban agricul- ment such as local NGOs, employees, and even students. UGCs may also ture at such a grand scale — indicative of what role “pockets” of social– involve residents in multi-family dwellings that are given management ecological memory can play in the resilience building of urban systems rights to lands (Fig. 2). From an urban resilience perspective, policy (Barthel et al., in press-a,b). makers and planners need to increasingly plan cities in relation to ener- Framed within the context of resilience thinking (sensu Berkes et al., gy deficiencies and collapses of supply lines (see Barthel and Isendahl, 2003), UGCs appear to hold particular bearing in the release and reorga- this issue; Barthel et al., 2010b). As this synthesis shows, UGCs holds a nization phases of the adaptive renewal cycle, i.e. when needs are high potential to play an even larger role in urban agricultures, supporting to address pertinent and emerging problems such as socio-economic locally generated food and reducing costs for -based change, or when populations in cities shrink or when cities become . Moreover, UGCs could also be part of specific conservation too densely built and therefore lack green spaces. targets in urban settings to support ecosystem services that are in decline or under threat in urban areas (Colding, 2007; Goddard et al., 4.3. ‘Cognitive Resilience Building’ for Ecosystem Services 2010; Snep et al., 2011).

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment concluded that about 60% 4.4. The Importance of Institutional Diversity of the global ecosystem services have become degraded or are used unsustainably, ascribed mainly due to the demands of urban As was discussed and proposed earlier, broader public participation populations (Grimm et al., 2008; MA, 2005). It has been suggested in UGCs depends on a diversity of institutional arrangements in order to that rapid urbanization is removing perceived and experienced match different peoples' ability and motives for participating in them. links between people and nature as modern life-styles are adopted Creating conditions for their self-organization and self-emergence and people cease to depend on local ecosystems (Miller, 2005; appear also to be important, although this may not be easy in practice, Stokes, 2006). This may lead to ‘extinction-of-experience’ of nature especially not in urban settings that lack ample green space. However, in cities (Pyle, 1978)andtoincrease‘environmental generational green roofs, green walls, and park management could be created in amnesia’ among urban populations (Miller, 2005). As people in cities densely built urban settings that could be developed around designs fail to reconnect to local ecosystems they fail to understand their of UGCs. dependency upon them (Samways, 2007). Studies also show that ecological knowledge is decreasing among urban populations and 5 This term refers to factors that provide human societies with the means and adap- that active land management promotes ecological learning and tations to deal with the and to actively modify it. J. Colding, S. Barthel / Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 156–166 163 ab

Fig. 2. Urban Green Commons (UGCs). Urban green commons could to a greater degree be designed in areas where people live and work. For example, UGCs may involve residents in multi-family dwellings that are given management rights to lands where they live, although land ownership may be municipal or private. The figure shows how a traditional yard in a city could be transformed into a lush, biodiversity-rich garden where dwellers could collectively take care of and manage diverse micro-habitats, promoting sense of place, social integration, and cognitive resilience building in urban settings.

Urban policy makers and planners need to increasingly address the cities, resulting from urbanization, needs not be positive per se, but fact that more and more land and resources in cities become privatized, depends on wise governance, management, and appropriate designs resulting in that urban residents increasingly lose access— and use to channel and nurture it in productive ways, i.e. supporting local eco- rights to land in cities (Colding, 2011b). This trend decreases people's system services and cognitive resilience building related to the chal- options to have meaningful interaction with nature in cities, alienate lenges of the Anthropocene (Steffen et al., 2011). people from local ecosystems and reducing opportunities for cognitive As shown here, attention to property rights arrangements involving resilience building. Moreover, as institutional research suggest, it is im- urban green commons holds potential to promote cultural integration portant to nurture a diversity of property rights regimes since no single in cities through civic participation in urban land management. Urban type of regimes (i.e. state-, private, or common property rights) can be green commons, hence, represent arenas for management and develop- prescribed as a remedy for resource overuse or environmental degrada- ment of interlinked in urban landscapes. More ex- tion (Ostrom, 2005). Rather, policy should focus on establishing a mul- plicitly urban green commons hold relevance for endorsing different titude of property rights regimes that are designed to fit the cultural, types of learning streams and values that is important to nurture in cit- economic, and geographic context in which they are to function ies, e.g. environmental and ecological learning, and learning related to (Hanna et al., 1996). social organization, the politics of urban space, social entrepreneurship, Diversity in property rights regimes in cities can also result in diver- as well as positive place making, community empowerment, restorative sified ecosystem management (Fig. 3), and this can have considerable environments, and for fostering of democratic values. Moreover, they conservation outcomes (Andersson et al., 2007; Barthel et al., 2010a,b, also hold relevance for interlinked processes of self-emergence of c; Colding et al., 2006). It should also be recognized that there is a pos- diverse urban social–ecological systems that on aggregated spatial itive correlation between funding and management capability, imply- scales can enhance urban biodiversity, and which on global scales pro- ing that local governments with restricted financial means to a larger duce urban ecosystems that differ between cities. degree should consider voluntary land-management approaches like To conclude, broader participation in urban green commons is more those offered by UGCs (see e.g. Colding et al., 2006; Oldfield et al., likely to succeed when a diversity of institutional options exists for their 2003). For example, the lack of governmental funding to maintain arrangement in a city. Such diversity provides a better matching of parks in Berlin after Germany reunified leads to the development of different individuals' preferences and motives for participating in the civically managed Burgerparks (Rosol, 2010). Hence, UGCs could collective green-area management. Hence, policy makers and planners build resilience even in economic terms by reducing impacts during should stimulate the self-emergence of different types of UGCs, and periods of budget deficiencies and economic recession in cities. support their evolvement in urban areas through creating institutional space, e.g. in conjunction of restoring depraved neighborhoods. There 5. Conclusions are ample of municipally owned land in cities to which urban residents could be given management rights (i.e. not necessarily ownership Further analysis is required to fully comprehend all the issues and rights). In recognition of that diversity in property rights regimes can aspects related to urban green commons (UGCs). For instance, the result in a diversification of ecosystem management with positive facets of , inclusion and exclusion in UGCs need to be more conservation outcomes, and when restoring degraded urban lands, fully understood (but see Kurtz, 2001). Considering the limited analyses policy makers and planners need to carefully consider the fundamental made on urban common property systems, the major purpose of this value of promoting institutional diversity in cities. In recognition of that paper has been to synthesize recent insights on such systems. As the homogenization of property rights (i.e. privatization) may further proposed herein, the increase of cultural diversity at the global level of increase the homogenization of biota in contemporary cities (Colding,

abc

Fig. 3. Diversity of property rights and ecosystem management. Diversity of property rights regimes in cities can result in diversified ecosystem management practices that in turn can promote biodiversity. For example, Andersson et al. (2007) found that management practices in allotment areas (c) resulted in higher pollinator abundance and that these held a different community structure of seed dispersing and insectivorous birds than compared government-managed cemeteries (a) and urban parks (b). 164 J. Colding, S. Barthel / Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 156–166

2011a), we urge mayors, landowners and urban practitioners to consid- Barthel, S., Sörlin, S., Ljungqvist, J., 2010b. Innovative memory and resilient cities: echoes fi from ancient Constantinople. In: Sinclair, P., Herschend, F., Isendahl, C., Nordquist, G. er the bene ts of adopting UGCs in urban settings. We conclude by (Eds.), The Urban Mind. Uppsala University Press, Uppsala, pp. 391–405. elucidating the following key insights on UGCs and their role in promot- Barthel, S., Colding, J., Ernstson, H., Marcus, L., Erixon, H., Thorsvall, J., 2010c. Qbook4- ing urban resilience building: Hållbarthet, Albano Resilient . Akademiska Hus, Stockholm, Sweden. Barthel, S., Parker, J., Folke, C., Colding, J.,inpress.UrbanGardens-PocketsofSocial–Ecological Memory, in: Tidball, KG and ME Krasny, (Eds.) Greening in the red zone: Disaster, resil- • UGCs offer arenas for management of cultural diversity, promoting cul- ience, and urgent biophilia. Dordrecht: Springer. ISBN 978-90-481-9946-4 tural integration; hence, could reduce potential social conflicts in cities Barthel, S. Parker, J. Ernstson, H., in press-b. Food and Green Space in Cities: A Resil- • UGCs provide active land-management systems for a greater set of ience Lens on Gardens and Urban Environmental Movements. . Barthel, S., Crumley, C., Svedin, U., Folke, C., in review. Pockets of social–ecological urban residents, important for social– building memory: combating bio-cultural erosion in landscapes of food production. Ecol- • UGCs represent institutional re-development designs for cities to ogy and Society. deal with fast-changing variables such as re-emerging temporal Barzel, Y., 1997. Economic Analysis of Property Rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA. crises (e.g. unemployment, economic recessions, underfunding of Bassett, T.J., 1981. Reaping on the margins: a century of community gardening in Amer- green area management) ica. Landscape 25, 1–8. • UGCs represent institutional re-development designs for cities to Been, V., Voicu, I., 2008. The effect of community gardens on neighboring property values. Real Estate Economics 36, 241–283. deal with slow-changing spatial variables such as when cities Bellini, E., Ottaviano, G.I.P., Pinelli, D., Prarolo, G., 2008. Cultural diversity and economic shrink or become too densely built performance: evidence from European regions. HWWI Research Paper. 1861- • Long-enduring UGCs (e.g. allotment gardens) can promote social– 504X, 3–14. Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI) (42 pp.). Bendt, P., 2010. Social learning and diversity of practice in community gardens in ecological memory in cities, important during periods of crises and/ Berlin. Master Thesis, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, or and reorganization pp. 73. • UGCs promote the ability to build capacity for learning and adapta- Bendt, P., Barthel, S., Colding, J., in press. Civic greening and environmental learning in public- access community gardens in Berlin. Landscape and Urban Planning. http://dx.doi.org/ tion in urban settings, e.g. through cognitive resilience building 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.003. • UGCs may provide economic benefits for local governments to man- Berkes, F., 1989. Common Property Resources. Ecology and Community-Based Sustain- age urban green space by drawing upon civic voluntary manage- able Development. Belhaven, London. ment; hence, reduce economic vulnerability Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1994. Investing in cultural capital for the sustainable use of natural resources. In: Jansson, A.-M., Hammer, M., Folke, C., Costanza, R. (Eds.), Investing in . Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 128–149. Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems. Management Practices and Acknowledgments Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as . Ecological Applications 10, 1251–1262. This research is part of the SUPER-project within the URBAN-NET pro- Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, 2003. Navigating Social–Ecological Systems: Building gram, funded by the European Commission's Framework 6 Programme Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. under the European Research Area Network (ERA-NET) initiative. It is Björkman, L., 2000. Vad betyder koloniträdgårdar för den urbana människan i Stockholm? also part of the Urban Form-project and FORMAS Green Wedge project. Länkar mellan fritidsodling i staden, ekologisk kunskap och uthållig samhällsbyggnad. Johan Colding's and Stephan Barthel's research has been funded through Master thesis. Department of Sytems Ecology, Stockholm University, Stockholm. Blair, R.B., 2001. Birds and butterflies along urban gradients in two ecoregions of the support and grants received from the Swedish Research Council for Envi- U.S. In: Lockwood, J.L., McKinney, M.L. (Eds.), Biotic Homogenization. Kluwer, ronment, Agricultural Sciences and (FORMAS). Thanks Norwell, MA, pp. 459–486. also to Mistra (the Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research) for Blomley, N., 2008. Enclosure, common right and the property of the poor. Social and Legal Studies 17, 311–331. support to the Stockholm Resilience Centre, and to the Department of Bonfiglio, O., 2009. Delicious Detroit. The city is plowing resources into its extensive vacant History, Stockholm University, in the support of Stephan Barthel's contri- land. : Planning. American Planning Association, pp. 32–37 (August/September 2009). bution. We also thank Jonas Adner for his nice artwork with Figs. 2 and 3 Bowman, A., Pagano, M.A., 1998. Urban l in the United States. Working paper, WP98AB1. Lincoln Land Institute of Land Policy, Boston, MA. of this paper. Boyer, L., Roth, W.-M., 2006. Learning and teaching as emergent features of informal settings: an ethnographic study in an environmental action group. Science Educa- tion 90, 1028–1049. References Campbell, L., Wiesen, A., 2009. Restorative Commons: Creating Health and Well-being through Urban Landscapes. USDA Service, PA, USA. Abadie, A., Gardeazabal, J., 2003. The economic costs of conflict: a case study for the Castells, M., 1989. The Informational City. Blackwell, Oxford. Basque Country. American Economic Review 93, 113–132. Colding, J., 2007. ‘Ecological land-use complementation’ for building resilience in urban Alesina, A., La Ferrara, E., 2005. Ethnic diversity and economic performance. Journal of ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning 81, 46–55. Economic Literature 43, 762–800. Colding, J., 2011a. The role of ecosystem services in contemporary urban planning. In: Altieri, M., Nelso Companioni, A., Cañizares, K., Murphy, C., Rosset, P., Bourque, M., Niemelä, J. (Ed.), Urban Ecology. Patterns, Processes and Applications. Oxford Uni- Nicholls, C.I., 1999. The greening of the “barrios”: urban agriculture for food secu- versity Press, Oxford, pp. 228–237. rity in Cuba. Agriculture and Human Values 16, 131–140. Colding, J., 2011b. Creating incentives for increased public engagement in ecosystem man- Andersson, E., Barthel, S., Ahrne, K., 2007. Measuring social–ecological dynamics behind agement through urban commons. In: Boyd, E., Folke, C. (Eds.), Adapting Institutions: the generation of ecosystem services. Ecological Applications 17, 1267–1278. Meeting the Challenge of Global Environmental Change. Cambridge University Press, Argüelles, J., 2011. Manifesto for the Noosphere: The Next Stage in the Evolution of Cambridge, UK. Human Consciousness. North Atlantic Books9781583943038. Colding, J., Folke, C., 2001. Social taboos: invisible systems of local resource manage- Baleé, W., 1993. Indigenous transformation of Amazonian . L'Homme 126–128, ment and biodiversity conservation. Ecological Applications 11, 584–600. 231–254. Colding, J., Elmqvist, T., Olsson, P., 2003a. Living with disturbance: building resilience in Barthel, S., 2006. Sustaining services with local stewards participation social–ecological systems. In: Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.), Navigating in Stockholm (Sweden). In: Tress, B., Tres, G., Fry, G., Opdam, P. (Eds.), From Landscape Social–Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Research to , Aspects of Integration, Education and Application: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 163–185. Wageningen UR Frontis Series, vol. 12, pp. 305–320. Colding, J., Folke, C., Elmqvist, 2003b. Social institutions in ecosystem management and Barthel, S. 2008. Recalling Urban Nature: Linking City People to Ecosystem Services. biodiversity conservation. Journal of Tropical Ecology 44, 25–41. PhD Thesis, Dept of , Stockholm University, Stockholm. ISBN Colding, J., Lundberg, J., Folke, C., 2006. Incorporating green-area user groups in urban 978-91-7155-741-4. ecosystem management. Ambio 35, 237–244. Barthel, S., Isendahl, C., this issue. Urban gardens, agricultures and : sources of Colding, J., Lundberg, J., Lundberg, S., Andersson, E., 2009. Golf courses and wetland resilience for long-term food security in cities. Ecological Economics. http://dx. fauna. Ecological Applications 19, 1481–1491. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.06.018 Collier, P., 2001. Implication of ethnic diversity. Economic Policy 32, 129–166. Barthel, S., Colding, J., Folke, C., Elmqvist, T., 2005. History and local management of a Crouch, D., Ward, C., 1997. The Allotment: Its Landscape and Culture, 2nd ed. Five biodiversity rich urban cultural landscape. Ecology and Society 10 (2), 10 ([online] Leaves Publications. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art10/). Crumley, C.L., 1994. Historical Ecology—Cultural, Knowledge and Changing Landscapes. Barthel, S., Folke, C., Colding, J., 2010a. Social–ecological memory in gardening: School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM, USA. Retaining the capacity for management of ecosystem services. Global Environmen- Crumley, C.L., 2000. From the garden to the globe-Linking time and space to meaning tal Change 20, 255–265. and memory. In: McIntosh, R.J., Tainter, J.A., McIntosh, S.K. (Eds.), The Way the J. Colding, S. Barthel / Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 156–166 165

Wind Blows-, History and Human Action. Historical Ecology Series. Colom- Maffi, L., Woodley, E., 2010. Biocultural diversity conservation. A global source book. bia University Press, NY, USA. Earthscan, London. Durkheim, E., 1997. The Division of Labour. The Free Press, USA. Marcus, C., Barnes, M., 1999. Healing Gardens: Therapeutic Benefits and Design Recom- Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Nyström, M., Peterson, G., Bengtsson, J., Walker, B., Norberg, J., mendations. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 2003. Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology McDaniel, J., Alley, K.D., 2005. Connecting local environmental knowledge and land and the Environment 1, 488–494. use practices: a human ecosystem approach to urbanization in West Georgia. Elmqvist,T.,Colding,J.,Barthel,S.,Borgström,S.,Duit,A.,Lundberg,J.,Andersson,E.,Ahrné, Urban Ecosystems 8, 23–38. K., Erntson, H., Folke, C., Bengtsson, J., 2004. The dynamics of social–ecological systems in McIntosh, R.J., 2000. Social memory in Mande. In: Mcintosh, R.J., Tainter, J.A., McIntosh, urban landscapes: Stockholm and the National Urban Park, Sweden. Annals of the New S.K. (Eds.), The Way the Wind Blows: Climate, History, and Human Action. Columbia York Academy of Sciences 1023, 308–322. University Press, New York, pp. 141–180. Emanuelsson, U., 2010. Europeiska kulturlandskap-hur människan format Europas McKinney, M.L., 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience 52, 883–890. natur. Fälth and Hässler, Värnamo, Sweden. ISBN 978-91-540-5977-5. Miller, J.R., 2005. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ernstson, H., Sörlin, S., 2009. Weaving protective stories: connective practices to artic- Ecology & Evolution 20, 430–434. ulate holistic values in Stockholm National Urban Park. Environment and Planning Milliken, F.J., Martins, L.L., 1996. Searching for common threads: understanding the A 41, 1460–1479. multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Florida, R.L., 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class and How It's Transforming Work, Lei- Review 21, 402–433. sure, Community and Everyday Life. Basic Books, New York. Nolin, C., 2003. Koloniträdgårdsrörelsen i Stockholm: Dess förutsättningar och Folke, C., Jansson, A., Larsson, J., Costanza, R., 1997. Ecosystem appropriation by cities. uppkomst vid 1900-talets början, in: Nordiska Muséets och Skansens Årsbok Ambio 26, 167–172. (Ed.), Stadens odlare. Nordiska Muséets Förlag, Värnamo, Sweden. Folke, C., Colding, J., Berkes, F., 2003. Synthesis: building resilience and adaptive capacity North, D.C., 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge in social–ecological systems. In: Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.), Navigating University Press, Cambridge. Social–Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge Oddsberg, J., 2011. An analysis of the potential of local stewardship as a management University Press, Cambridge, pp. 352–387. mode for increasing and enhancing ecosystem services in the urban landscape. Folke,C.,Jansson,Å.,Rockström,J.,Olsson,P.,Carpenter,S.,Chapin,F.,Crépin,A.S., Master's thesis 2011. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden. Daily,G.,Danell,K.,Ebbesson,J.,Elmqvist,T.,Galaz,V.,Moberg,F.,Nilsson,M., Oldfield, T.E.E., Smith, R.J., Harrop, S.R., Leader-Williams, N., 2003. Field sports and Österblom,H.,Ostrom,E.,Persson,Å.,Peterson,G.,Polasky,S.,Steffen,W., conservation in the United Kingdom. Nature 423, 531–533. Walker, B., Westley, F., 2011. Reconnecting to the biosphere. Ambio 7444–7447. Ollman, B., 1971. Alienation—Marx conception of Man in Capitalist Society. Cambridge Fraser, E.D.G., Rimas, A., 2010. Empires of Food. Feast, Famine and the Rise and Fall of University Press, Cambridge. Civilizations. Random House Books, New York, USA. Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Geertz, C., 1993. The Interpretation of Cultures. Fontana Press, London . (1973). Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gehl, J., 2010. Cities for People. Island Press, Washington DC. Ostrom, E., 1996. Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy and development. Glover, T., Shinew, K., Parry, D., 2005. Association, sociability, and civic culture: the World Development 24, 1073–1087. democratic effect of community gardening. Leisure Sciences 27, 75–92. Ostrom, E., 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press, Goddard, M., Dougill, A., Benton, T., 2010. Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conser- New York. vation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25 (2), 90–98. Ostrom, E., Schlager, E., 1996. The formation of property rights. In: Hanna, S., Folke, C., Grimm, N.B., Faeth, S.H., Golubiewski, N.E., Redman, C.L., Wu, J., Bai, X., Briggs, J.M., Mäler, K.-G. (Eds.), Rights to Nature. Island Press, Washington D.C., pp. 127–156. 2008. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319, 756–760. Ottaviano, G.I.P., Peri, G., 2006. The economic value of cultural diversity: evidence from Halbwachs, M., 1926. On Collective Memory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA. US cities. Journal of Economic 6, 9–44. [1950]. Parker, J.N., 2003. The Rise of the Allotment Movement in Europe: An Historical Over- Hanna, S.S., Folke, C., Mäler, K.-G., 1996. Rights to Nature. Ecological, Economic, view with Theoretical Implications. The Department of Systems Ecology Stockholm Cultural, and Political Principles of Institutions for the Environment. Island University, Sweden. Press, Covelo, California. Pyle, R.M., 1978. The extinction of experience. Horticulture 56, 64–67. Hansen, A.J., Defries, R., Turner, W., 2004. Land use change and biodiversity: a syn- Ricketts, T., Imhoff, M., 2003. Biodiversity, urban areas, and agriculture: locating prior- thesis of rates and consequences during the period of satellite imagery. In: ity ecoregions for conservation. Conservation Ecology 8, 1 (http://consecol.org./ Gutman, G., Justice, C. (Eds.), Land Change Science: Observing, Monitoring, and vol8/iss2/art1). Understanding Trajectories of Change on the Earth's Surface. Springer Verlag, Rindos, D., 1980. Symbiosis, instability, and the origins and spread of agriculture: New York, NY, pp. 277–299. A new model. Current Anthropology 21, 751–772. Healy, P., 1998. Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society. Town Planning Rosol, M., 2010. Public participation in post-Fordist urban green space governance: the Review 69, 1–22. case of community gardens in Berlin. International Journal of Urban and Regional Holland, L., 2004. Diversity and connections in community gardens: a contribution to Research 34, 548–563. local . Local Environment 9, 285–305. Roszak, T., 1973. Where the Wasteland Ends. Doubleday Anchor, New York. Jacobs, J., 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House, New York. Ruitenbeek, J., Cartier, C., 2001. The invisible wand: adaptive co-management as an Janson Waddick, C., 2000. Metropolitan Gardening Organizations: planning for sustain- emergent strategy in complex bio-economic systems. Occasional Paper. Center able communities. PUBP 8500. Research Seminar in , pp. 1–36. for International Research, Bogor, Indonesia (34 pp.). Krasny, M., 2009. Children jump into community gardens: what springs out? In: Rydin, Y., Pennington, M., 2000. Public participation and local environmental planning: Tidball, K.G., Krasny, M., Faurest, K. (Eds.), The Case for a Community Greening the collective action problem and the potential of social capital. Local Environment Research Agenda. American Community Gardening Association, Columbus, OH, 5, 153–169. pp. 49–60. Sala, O.E., Chapin, F.S.I., Armesto, J.J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-Sanwald, Krasny, M., Tidball, K., 2009. Community gardens as contexts for science, stewardship, E., Huenneke, L.F., Jackson, R.B., Kinzig, A., Leemans, R., Lodge, D.M., Mooney, H.A., and civic action learning. Cities and the Environment 2, 1–18. Oesterheld, M., Poff, N.L., Sykes, M.T., Walker, B.H., Walker, M., Wall, D.H., 2000. Kurtz, H., 2001. Differentiating multiple meanings of gardening and community. Urban Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287, 1770–1774. Geography 7, 656–670. Saldivar-Tanaka, L., Krasny, M., 2004. Culturing community development, neighbor- Larsson, Marie. 2009. Stadsdelsträdgård - plats för gemenskap och kreativa processer. hood open space, and civic agriculture: the case of Latino community gardens in Doctoral diss. Dept. of Landscape , SLU. Acta Universitatis agriculturae New York City. Agriculture and Human Values 21, 399–412. Sueciae vol. 2009:40. Samways, M., 2007. Rescuing the extinction of experience. Biodiversity and Conserva- Lee, S., Webster, C., 2006. Enclosure of the urban commons. GeoJournal 66, 27–42. tion 16, 1995–1997. Levkoe, C., 2006. Learning democracy through food justice movements. Agriculture and Sassen, S., 1994. Cities in a World Economy. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, US. Human Values 23, 89–98. Scarborough, V.L., 2008. Rate and process of societal change in semitropical settings: Lewis, C.A., 1992. Effects of plants and gardening in creating interpersonal and commu- the ancient Maya and the living Balinese. Quaternary International 184, 24–40. nity well-being. In: Relf, D. (Ed.), The Role of Horticulture in Human Well-being Schlager, E., Ostrom, E., 1992. Property-rights regimes and natural resources: a concep- and Social Development: A National Symposium, 19–21 April 1990, Arlington, tual analysis. Land Economics 68, 249–262. Virginia. Timber Press, Portland, pp. 55–65. Schmelzkopf, K., 1996. Urban community gardens as a contested space. Geographical Lindhagen, A., 1916. Koloniträdgårdar och planterade gårdar (Allotment gardens and Review 85, 369–381. planted gardens). Rekolid, Stockholm, Sweden. Schukoske, J.E., 2000. Community development through gardening: State and local Linn, K., 1999. Reclaiming the sacred commons. New Village 1, 42–49. policies transforming urban open space. Legislation and Public Policy 3, 351–392. Ljungqvist, J., Barthel, S., Finnveden, G., Sörlin, S., 2010. The Urban Anthropocene: Select Committee, 1998. The United Kingdom Parliament, Select Committee on Environ- Lessons for Sustainability from the of Constantinople. In: mental, , and Regional Affairs Fifth Report to The House of Commons . (1998). Sinclair, Paul, Herschend, Frands, Isendahl, Christian, Nordquist, Gullög (Eds.), Shinew, K.J., Glover, T.D., Parry, D.C., 2004. Leisure spaces as potential sites for interra- The Urban Mind, cultural and environmental dynamics Studies in Global Archaeol- cial interaction: community gardens in urban areas. Journal of Leisure Research 36, ogy, 15. University Press, Sweden, Uppsala, pp. 368–394. 336–355. Low, B., Ostrom, E., Simon, C., Wilson, J., 2003. Redundancy and diversity: do they influ- Sinclair, P., Frands Herschend, F., Nordquist, G., Isendahl, C., 2010. The urban mind, cul- ence optimal management. In: Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.), Navigating tural and environmental dynamics. Studies in Global Archaeology, 15. Uppsala Social–Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Uppsala, Sweden. University Press, Cambridge, pp. 83–114. Snep, R.P.H., WallisdeVries, M.F., Opdam, P., 2011. Conservation where people work: a (MA) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: role for business districts and industrial areas in enhancing endangered butterfly Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C. populations? Landscape and Urban Planning 103, 94–101. 166 J. Colding, S. Barthel / Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 156–166

Steffen, W., Persson, Å., Deutsch, L., Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Richardson, K., Tidball, G.K., Krasny, E.M., Svendsen, E., Cambell, L., Helphand, K., 2010. Stewardship, Crumley, C., Crutzen, P., Folke, C., Gordon, L., 2011. The anthropocene: from global learning and memory in disaster resilience. Environmental Learning Research 16 change to planetary stewardship. Ambio 7444–7447. (5–6), 591–609. Stokes, D., 2006. Conservators of experience. BioScience 56, 7–8. UNESCO, 2008. Links between biological and cultural diversity —concepts, methods Sukopp, H., Trautmann, W., Korneck, D., 1979. The soil flora and vegetation of Berlin's and experiences. Report of the International Workshop. UNESCO, Paris . (2008). wastelands. In: Laurie, I. (Ed.), Nature in Cities. John Wiley, Chichester. Warner, S.B., 1987. To Dwell is to Garden: A History of Boston's Community Gardens. Theodori, G.L., Luloff, A.E., Willits, F.K., 1998. The association of and Northeastern University Press, Boston. environmental concern: reexamining the Dunlap-Heffernan thesis. Webster, C.J., 2002. Property rights and the public realm: gates, green-belts and 63, 94–108. gemeinshaft. Environment and Planning B 29, 397–412. Thorns, D.C., 2002. The Transformation of Cities: Urban Theory and Urban Life. Palgrave Wenger, E., 1998. Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge McMillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke. University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Tidball, K.G., Krasny, M.E., (in press). From risk to resilience: expanding the role of Wenger, E., 2000. Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organizaton 7, community greening and civic ecology in urban stability, security, transition and 225–246. reconstruction contexts, in: Tidball, K.G., Krasny, M.E. (Eds.), Greening in the Red Zanoni, P., Janssens, M., 2009. Sustainable DiverCities. In: Janssens, M., Pinelli, D., Zone: Disaster, Resilience, and Urgent Biophilia. Springer, Dordrecht. ISBN 978- Reyman, D.C., Wallman, S. (Eds.), Sustainable Cities. Diversity, Economic Growth 90-481-9946-4. and Social Cohesion. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 3–25.