Barthel Et Al - 2013 Food and Green Space in Cities- A Resilience Lens on Gardens and Urban Environmental Movements

Food and Green Space in Cities: AResilience Lens on Gardens and UrbanEnvironmental Movements

Stephan Barthel, John Parker and Henrik Ernstson

[Paper first received, November 2011; in final form, June 2012]

Abstract

This article examines the role played by urban gardens during historical collapses inurban food supply lines and identifies the social processes required to protect two crit-ical elements of urban food production during times of crisis—open green spaces andthe collective memory of how to grow food. Advanced communication and transporttechnologies allow food sequestration from the farthest reaches of the planet, but havemarkedly increasing urban dependence on global food systems over the past 50 years.Simultaneously, such advances have eroded collective memory of food production,while suitable spaces for urban gardening have been lost. These factors combine toheighten the potential for food shortages when—as occurred in the 20th century—major economic, political or environmental crises sever supply lines to urban areas.This paper considers how to govern urban areas sustainably in order to ensure foodsecurity in times of crisis by: evincing the effectiveness of urban gardening duringcrises; showing how allotment gardens serve as conduits for transmitting collectivesocial-ecological memories of food production; and, discussing roles and strategies ofurban environmental movements for protecting urban green space. Urban gardeningand urban social movements can build local ecological and social response capacityagainst major collapses in urban food supplies. Hence, they should be incorporated ascentral elements of sustainable urban development. Urban governance for resilienceshould be historically informed about major food crises and allow for redundant foodproduction solutions as a response to uncertain futures.

Stephan Barthel is in the Stockholm Resilience Centre and the Department of History, StockholmUniversity, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden. Email: [email protected].

John Parker is in the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University ofCalilfornia, Santa Barbara, 735 State Street, California, USA. Email: [email protected].

Henrik Ernstson is in the Stockholm Resilience Center, Stockholm University, SE-10691,Stockholm, Sweden, and the African Centre for Cities, University of Cape Town, Rondesbosch,7701 Cape Town, South Africa. Email: [email protected].

1–18, 2013

0042-0980 Print/1360-063X Online� 2013 Urban Studies Journal Limited

DOI: 10.1177/0042098012472744 at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on August 6, 2015usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://usj.sagepub.com/

1. Introduction

Urbanites’ dependence on rural resourceshas been appreciated at least since TheWealth of Nations (Smith, 1776/1977).Smith’s pioneering book notes the ‘‘greatand ready’’ market of the town for the ‘‘rudeproduce of the country’’. At the time ofSmith’s writing, distinctions between ruraland urban areas were, however, of relativedegree. Clear delineations between urbanand rural areas did not emerge until the19th and 20th centuries, reinforced byurban and regional planning, and with themincreasing vulnerability of urbanites to foodshortages. For instance, as recently as theGreat Wars of the 20th century, millionssuffered from food shortages when interna-tional trade broke down and supply lines tourban areas were severed. Challengingthough this situation was, it could havebeen much worse. Practical knowledge offarming practices and ample green spaceallowed urbanites to grow much of theirown food and avoid mass starvation.

Twenty-first-century urbanites occupy amuch more vulnerable position due to thedouble processes of space–time compres-sion and capitalist urbanisation. Space–time compression refers to those socioeco-nomical processes which serve to acceleratethe pace of time and reduce the significanceof distance (Harvey, 1990). These includetechnological innovations (telephones,Internet), cheap and efficient travel (rail,cars, jets) and global economics (openingnew markets, speeding up productioncycles and reducing the turn-over time ofcapital). The pace at which modern urbanlife proceeds and the insignificance of geo-graphical barriers are qualitatively differentin terms of their intensity and scope com-pared with even 50 years ago (Sassen,1991), creating the perception that localfood sources are obsolete. Cities sequesterfood from the farthest reaches of the planet

via a fragile global food system whereenergy costs are escalating and marginalreturns from fertilisers and pesticides arediminishing, while environmental prob-lems, such as water degradation, topsoilloss and biodiversity loss, are accumulatingat sites of food production (for example,Deutsch, 2004; IAASTD, 2009; Fraser andRimas, 2010; Steel, 2010). While globalconnectivity between cities and remotefood supplies can decrease cities’ vulner-ability to food shortages during crises ofmedium severity (Ernstson et al., 2010b),the sudden severance of supply lines intocities poses major threats to urban foodsecurity (Barthel, Folke and Colding, 2010;Barthel and Isendahl, 2012; Parker et al.,2013). Insights from cities in easternEurope and Cuba after 1989 (Wright, 2009;Round et al., 2010) and current foodshortages in Athens following the eurocrisis provide dramatic reminders about thevulnerable position of city populations, inconjunction with volatile financial systems,conflicts and, perhaps increasingly, byresource scarcities and climate change.

Urban food production depends on twocrucial resources: a viable urban ecosystemwith sufficient land for cultivation and prac-tical knowledge of how to grow food. Bothneed to be bolstered to provide meaningfulfood security. However, the drivers ofspace–time compression and acceleratingproperty prices tend to remove public greenspace from urban landscapes, while agricul-tural areas near cities are transformed andused for other purposes (Lee and Webster,2006; Ernstson, 2013; Colding and Barthel,2013). Concomitantly, local and tacitknowledge related to agriculture is disap-pearing from metropolitan landscapes, cre-ating an ‘extinction of experience’ ofhuman–nature interaction and a collective‘forgetting’ of how to grow food (Pyle, 1978;

2 STEPHAN BARTHEL ET AL.

at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on August 6, 2015usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from


Miller, 2005; Barthel, Folke and Colding,2010; Barthel, Sorlin and Ljungqvist, 2010;Ernstson et al. 2010a).

Thus, space–time compression and urba-nisation confer benefits, but also lead to theloss of urban green space and of practicalknowledge related to food production, sig-nificantly increasing the potential urbanfood shortages in times of major crises.Given these challenges, how can shortagesbe avoided and urban agricultural practicesand cultures be fostered? Urban vulnerabil-ity to food shortages can be lessened by: cre-ating and fostering urban gardens and thesocial networks, practices and artifactsrequired to transmit knowledge of food pro-duction; and, engaging in collective socialaction to protect the urban spaces whereinsuch knowledge can be created and trans-mitted and food grown. This article thuscontributes to recent scholarship on sustain-able urban governance by identifying thesocial mechanisms and practices wherebyknowledge of food production can be culti-vated and sustained and urban green areaspreserved and reimagined as food produc-tion sites.

Section 2 details the history of allotmentgardening in western Europe and NorthAmerica, describing its origins and demon-strating the role of allotments in respondingto urban food crises in the 20th century.Section 3 describes how social-ecologicalmemories required for urban food produc-tion are stored and translated across timeand space in urban gardens, and outlines anumber of important ways in which thesememories and the social and physical infra-structure which support them may bestrengthened. Section 4 describes the impor-tance of urban socio-environmental move-ments for maintaining urban green spaceand suggests strategies by which members ofthese movements may increase their abilityto protect urban green space for food pro-duction. We close with a general overview.

2. Allotment Gardens as Pockets ofResilience

Urban allotment gardens in the Westernworld originated primarily in response tofood shortages during the transition fromfeudal agrarianism to urban industrialism(Table 1; Barthel, Parker et al., 2013). InSweden, for instance, allotment gardenshelped to ameliorate social problems result-ing from mass migration from the country-side to urban areas, such as food shortagesand meagre living conditions (Barthel,Parker et al., 2013). British allotment gar-dens share the same origins. From the 17ththrough to the 19th centuries, vast areas ofpreviously communal sites for food pro-duction, fuel gathering and grazing wereprivatised and enclosed (Moran, 1990;Humphreys, 1996; Select Committee,1998). By 1850, approximately 88 per centof farm labourers had no personal owner-ship over the lands they tended. This ‘greatenclosure’ dissolved the ‘commons’, alongwith the ancient system of local food pro-duction, leaving the poor to live at orbelow subsistence levels. This suffering cat-alysed collective social movements, leadingto the passing of laws allocating space forurban allotment gardens (Crouch andWard, 1988/1997). Allotment gardens havesince served as important buffers againsturban food shortages (Barthel, Folke andColding, 2010).1

Across Europe, the impetus for allotmentgardening was primarily food shortages.Also ubiquitous are the rise and fall of allot-ment gardening preceding and followingfood shortages caused by economic andpolitical crises. This trend is most notableduring World War II. Although Swedenwas not directly involved in the war, relatedfood shortages resulted in a rapid increasein allotment gardening, rising from 30 000gardens prior to the war to 130 000 duringits peak, producing approximately 10 per

FOOD AND GREEN SPACE IN CITIES 3



cent of all vegetables consumed (Barthel,Parker et al., 2013). In Germany, thenumber of allotment gardens rose from afew hundred in the 19th century to 450 000during the economic crises of the early1930s to 800 000 at the war’s end.

The best country-level data relate to theBritish experience, where ‘boom and bust’cycles are apparent. Figure 1 shows thenumber of allotment gardens in Britainfrom 1873 through to 1978. Two majorpeaks are apparent. The first occurredduring World War I, when supply lines tooutside food sources were severed and the

Kaiser threatened to ‘‘starve the Britishpeople until they, who have refused peace,will kneel and plea for it’’. Facing mass star-vation, the government permitted urbanlots, parks and sports fields to be convertedto gardens through its ‘‘Every Man aGardener’’ campaign. The number of allot-ment gardens rose meteorically from600 000 to 1 500 000, providing Britonswith 2 million tons of fresh vegetables by1918 (Crouch and Ward, 1997; SelectCommittee, 1998). The World War II ‘‘Digfor Victory’’ campaign generated anotherexplosion of gardening. By 1942, one out of

Table 1. Drivers for boom and bust cycles in urban allotment gardens in Sweden, Germany,France and Britain

Nation Organisational impetus Crisis 1 Crisis 2 Crisis 3

Sweden Urbanisation/industrialisation

World War I Economic crisis (1930s) World War II

Germany Urbanisation/industrialisation

World War I Economic crisis (1930s) World War II

France Urbanisation/industrialisation

— — World War II

Britain Urbanisation/industrialisation/change in property rights

World War I — World War II

Sources: Crouch and Ward (1997); Moran (1990) and http://www.koloni.org/pdf/01.pdf.

Figure 1. Trends in British allotment gardening, 1873–1978.Sources: Humphreys (1996); Crouch and Ward (1997); Select Committee (1998).




every two manual workers had an allot-ment garden (Crouch and Ward, 1997).The number of allotment gardens rosefrom 800 000 prior to the war to 1 400 000during its peak, providing British citizenswith 1 300 000 tons of food (Humphreys,1996; Select Committee, 1998).

In sum, allotment gardens originated infood shortages and socio-environmentalcrises, and were major sources of resiliencefor Western cities major crises.2 However,the past 50 years have witnessed consider-able public neglect of the spaces requiredfor urban food production and the politicalmeans of protecting them. We next con-sider the importance of allotment gardensfor transferring knowledge of food produc-tion practices and of an active civic societyfor preserving the space to do so.

3. Allotment Gardens and Social-ecological Memories

There are around 3 million allotment gar-dens in Europe (Barthel, Parker et al.,2013). In an urban environment, allotmentgarden areas appear as lush, flower-richlandscape patches, often containing fruittrees and small chalets. European allotmentgardens are often considerably old, somehaving been in existence for over a century.Property rights are often long term (up to25-year contracts) and organised hierarchi-cally, with individual management rightsfor each plot embedded in rules-in-use oflocal garden communities and broaderurban land use regulations. Allotment gar-dens can be broadly described as represent-ing knowledge ‘legacies’ of traditionalhousehold gardening practices, where theusers’ gardening knowledge has been passedon and socially retained for a considerabletime (Barthel, Folke and Colding, 2010).Allotment gardens thus also serve as impor-tant sites for conferring practical knowledge

of urban agriculture, a topic to which wenow turn.

3.1 Social Memory and Human Behaviour

Urban gardens play a critical but rarelyappreciated role in ensuring urban food pro-duction and associated ecosystem services.They provide a unique and distinctivelyeffective means of retaining and transmit-ting collective memories of how to growfood and manage the regulatory ecosystemservices required to do so.

Collective memory—memories orknowledge shared by members of a distinctsocial group—is maintained and fosteredin social groups such as communities, set-tlements, professional groups and religions(Halbwachs, 1952/1992; Connerton, 1989;Climo and Cattell, 2002; Misztal, 2003).The study of collective memory has recentlybecome a focus of several fields, linkingprocesses of remembering and forgetting tomodes of retention and loss within theirhistorical, cultural and political contexts.The literature indicates that, while onlyindividuals can be said to remember sensustricto, individual memory processes aresocially derivative and facilitated by supra-individual means such as sharing stories,artifacts, symbols, rituals and writtenaccounts. This work is especially relevant toour discussion as it demonstrates thatsocial and ecological crises can rendermemories indelible or, in certain contexts,can entirely suppress them (Crumley, 1994;Nazarea, 1998; Mcintosh et al., 2000;Barthel, Crumley et al., 2013).

We prefer the term social-ecologicalmemory (Barthel, Folke and Colding, 2010)because it explicates the inherent feedbackloops between human actions and ecologi-cal processes. Social-ecological memory isthe combined means by which knowledge,experience and practice of ecosystem man-agement are captured, stored, revived and




transmitted through time (Barthel, Folkeand Colding, 2010). For instance, thediverse social-ecological memories of land-scape stewards play an important role inecological resilience as such knowledgehelps to renew and reorganise the capacityof social-ecological systems to generate eco-system services like food in times of turbu-lence (Berkes and Folke, 2002).

Community engagement in allotmentgardens over time results in a shared his-tory (Wenger, 1998; McKenna et al., 2008)and in artifacts, locally adapted organismsand landscape features (Barthel, Folke andColding, 2010). These tend to outlive therepertoires of practices that first shapedthem and function as carriers of experi-ences, practices and knowledge. Forinstance, in traditional agriculture, a smallpercentage of one year’s harvest is oftensaved for the next planting. Over deep-timeevolution, this creates locally adapted vari-eties of crops co-evolved with human prac-tices and local environmental conditions(Fraser and Rimas, 2010). Social-ecologicalmemories of fluctuating local environmen-tal conditions and societal adaptations arecarried forward through time by locallyadapted crops, landscape features and agro-technologies like gardens, as well as byhabits, oral traditions, written accounts andself-organised systems of rules (Barthel,Folke and Colding, 2010). Such carriers ofsocial memory (Table 2) are constantlyshaped by social participation and environ-mental dynamics, and they incorporatemany small, almost imperceptible varia-tions created by constantly changing con-texts (Scott, 1988; Wenger, 1998). In time,the double processes of participation andreification form a shared memory of achanging physical environment, socioeco-nomic fluctuations linked to it and localresponses to such fluctuations (Barthel,Folke and Colding, 2010). In Stockholmallotment gardens, collective mnemonic

devices include physical objects in the gar-dens, exchange of seeds and recipes,mimicking of bodily practices, self-enforcedrules and a semi-annual magazine. Oral tra-ditions are also important and includeteachings by elected mentors and the every-day exchange of experiences and ordinarygossip, which result in a shared jargon,metaphors and proverbs. Newcomers tapinto garden practices primarily by takingpart in such conversations (Barthel, Folkeand Colding, 2010).

Part of the ecological knowledge carriedin social-ecological memory is tacit(Polyani, 1966; Sensiper, 1998), expressedin habits and behaviour to fit the particularenvironmental situations of the gardeners(Misztal, 2003; Nazarea, 1998). Examplesinclude the common practice of protectinginsectivorous bird habitats and supportingpest regulation (Mols and Visser, 2002;Andersson et al., 2007), practices that aretacitly carried forward in time. These find-ings are in line with the literature on ruralcommunity-based conservation, which hasfocused primarily on the roles of oral tradi-tions, beliefs, ceremonies and ritual prac-tices in transferring sound ecologicalmanagement practices (Berkes, 1999;Berkes et al., 2003).

3.2 Collectively Improving Urban Gardensand Food Provision in Cities

In providing and preserving collectivesocial-ecological memories, urban garden-ing counteracts a social forgetting aboutour dependency on social cohesion and onlocal land. Collectively managed gardensserve as living libraries for transmittinginformation about a portfolio of locallyadapted practices and plants, about soil fer-tility, micro climate and local populationsof ecosystem service providers (Table 3).Allotment gardens also complement publicurban space and parks by helping processes




of place-making in neighbourhoods (Bendtet al., 2013). The latter are critical for build-ing the social capacity for protecting andnurturing urban green space—a theme towhich will we return shortly.

Despite the ecological and social benefitsconferred by allotment gardens, urban gov-ernance practices are insufficient to supportthe extent of social-ecological memoriesrequired to produce a sufficient amount offood in times of crisis (Barthel, Parker et al.,2013). Garden memories are fragile andvague compared with the powerful forces ofdaily demands, desires and impressions.Dominant urban experiences and values areshaped by a constantly changing mix of the‘silent’ waves of influence through social-ecological memories and the ‘loud’ frequen-cies on which other values rest—for example,those connected with industry, trade andmass consumption. Perhaps the most power-ful erasure of memory in this constantlychanging mix is the passage of time. Newand more robust methods must be developedto transfer these critical forms of ecologicalknowledge to the future.

Transmission of collective memories,both formal and informal, can been sup-ported by governance in many ways. Stories,songs and poems are passed from one gen-eration to the next; visual and mnemonic

cues are left in landscapes; laws and regula-tions transmit behaviour; the embodimentof everyday practice is taught through thecadence of work; every written record is a‘message in a bottle’ from the past (Barthel,Crumely et al., 2013). Mentorship training,where older experienced gardeners teach theyounger, is especially important for trans-mission of embodied and tacit knowledge. Adiversity of garden typographies helps toattract different age-groups and ethnicities

Table 2. Social-ecological memory in allotment gardens of Stockholm: collective mnemoniccarriers of experiences, ecological knowledge and garden practices

Collective mnemonic devices Examples

Habits/rituals Imitation of practices, communal spring/fall cleaningand exchange of seeds

Oral tradition Narratives, teachings, phrases and proverbsRules-in-use (institutions) Informal protection of various organisms, property

rights and regulations to the landPhysical forms/artifacts Meeting protocols, booklets, photographs and

agro-technologies, tools, organismsExternal sources of memory support Media and written accord, regulations, social networks

Source: modified from Barthel, (2008); Barthel, Folke and Colding (2010)

Table 3. Ecosystem services generated byurban gardening

Supply of fresh vegetables, crops, fruits andberriesProduction of fertile soilsRecycling of waste by composting and reducedfood transport and packagingSeed dispersalPollinationGenetic library maintenance of crop varietiesNatural insect pest regulationSurface water drainageRegulation of microclimateLearning/memory arenas about foodproduction and local ecologiesMnemonic features in urban landscapes relatedto food security

Sources: Bolund and Hunhammar (1999);Miller (2005); Ernstson et al. (2010a).




(Bendt et al., 2013). This, combined withthe sharing of experiences between gardens,helps to transmit experiences and memoriesbetween cohorts and cultures (Berkes et al.,2003). External support for the sharing andbanking of seeds is important for securinglocally adapted plants as memory carriers.However, the most central aspect of sustain-ing the ability to grow food is the physicalpresence of collectively managed urban gar-dens since they serve as physical mnemoniccues. Without physical spaces in urbanlandscapes for agriculture and horticulture,memories of how to produce food havenothing on which to work. Carriers ofexperience-based and practical knowledgesimply dissolve. Urban gardens mitigateilliteracy related to practical knowledge ofhow to grow food among urban populations(Barthel, Folke and Colding, 2010; Bendtet al., 2013). Green space that can be usedfor agriculture must be safe-guarded forsuch tacit knowledge to exist in cities.

Since space is often the limiting resourcein cities, and always contested, the local resili-ence of such gardens must be understood inrelation to the power landscapes of cities.Considering the strong real estate interestsand political forces that dominate urbanspace today (Lee and Webster, 2006; Harvey,1996), such garden initiatives need supportin terms of legal structures and property rightsolutions (Barthel, Folke and Colding, 2010),but human agency and skills are also needed.In Stockholm, allotment garden associationshave created a city-wide umbrella organisa-tion to navigate urban decision-making andpower dynamics (Ernstson et al., 2010a). TheAllotment Union is positioned as brokerbetween individual garden associations andthe city government, representing the interestof each garden in the negotiations with thecity about leaseholds and fees (Barthel, Folkeand Colding, 2010). Included in governancesupport for gardens must be ethical

discussions about which groups in societycould most benefit from enhanced local foodsecurity. These issues are considered in thenext section.

4. Food Strategies in UrbanPowerscapes: Urban EnvironmentalMovements

Accommodating urban gardening and foodproduction in cities requires negotiatingbetween various interests wielding differen-tial levels of power to defend their claims tourban space. This negotiation is material inits contestation of physical space, culturalthrough the construction of alternative ima-ginaries of urban land use and politicalthrough engagement with decision-makingprocesses. Informative in this respect isscholarship on social movements, heredefined as sustained collective action acrossspace and time among autonomous civilorganisations engaged in social conflict andsharing common objectives and methods(Diani, 2003). Social movements are hetero-geneous, themselves composed of multipleorganisations and social networks engagingin internal conflicts and struggles (Diani,2003).

Others have focused on urban planningto increase urban food security, arguing thatthe urban food system should be of equalimportance as such basic urban services astransport, sewage and water (Pothukuchiand Kaufman, 2000; Born and Purcell,2006).3 While important, we emphasise thatone also needs to move outside a planningand techno-managerial discourse and situ-ate food security as a political question. Anactive civil society is necessary for mobilis-ing people and resources to protect urbangreen space, sustaining the knowledge ofhow to grow food and re-imagining the cityas being a place of food production.




4.1 Urban Social Movements and theProtection of Urban Green Space

Castells’s work on ‘urban social move-ments’ is useful for considering the role ofcivil society in struggles for the more justdistribution of collective resources suchgreen space (Castells, 1983). For Castells,such struggles must shift scales and spanmultiple interest groups, move beyondsingle neighbourhoods and wed togethergrievances or interests into broader claimscapable of challenging existing forms ofurban reproduction and planning regimes(see also Harvey, 1996; Diani, 2003). Inrelation to food, urban ecosystems that canbe used to build food security, like inBritain during the wars, are prime exampleof public goods—i.e. the use of such cannotbe treated as solely within the interest ofprivate land holders or the state. Walker(2007) has also eloquently demonstratedthe capacity of civil society to effectivelystructure urban space in his history ofstruggles over urban land use in postWorld-War-II-San Francisco. He contendsthat San Francisco’s high ratio of urbangreen space for farming, recreation andnature reserves resulted from an active civilsociety contesting short-sighted economicland uses proposed by industrialists andurban planners. Accompanying strugglesover urban space are also struggles overurban identity. This is exemplified by‘garden movements’ which plant fruit trees,establish mobile gardens or, as ‘guerilla gar-deners’, throw ‘seed bombs’ into what acti-vists view as badly used open spaces. Suchactions highlight the issue of local foodproduction and are also aimed at creating anew identity for the city as an organicentity.

Taken together, a social movement per-spective can shed light on how urban spacedevoted to food production and the regula-tory ecosystem services required for it can

be protected and revived. The protection ofthe Stockholm National Urban Park pro-vides an illustrative empirical example(Ernstson et al., 2008; Ernstson and Sorlin,2009; Ernstson, 2011). This struggle arosefrom public discontent regarding the plan-ning of large infrastructure projects inStockholm. Around 1990, a small set ofactivists began working to mobilise existingcivic organisations to create a civicalliance—partly institutionalised under anumbrella organisation—to protect whatthey referred to as The Ecopark. By 1995,political pressure had culminated in parlia-ment officially protecting a 27 square kilo-metre park composed of green areas andwaterways previously viewed as separateentities.

Two main factors have been identified toaccount for the success of this movement.The first is the emergence of a core–periphery social network structure amongthese civic organisations which engenderednetwork-level mechanisms of protection(Ernstson et al., 2008; Ernstson, 2011). Thisnetwork structure had a nucleus of six civicorganisations. These tightly networked acti-vists quickly learned laws, regulations andhow to intervene effectively in the planningprocess, enlisting lawyers, landscape archi-tects and journalists. Political connectionsallowed them to detect exploitation plansearly in the planning process and rally effec-tively against them. Peripheral organisa-tions such as allotment gardeners, boatingclubs, scouts, horse riding and ornithologi-cal clubs served as monitors for smallerthreats such as parking lot construction.Their information was then transmitted tothe more influential core organisations thatwere better able to affect protection.

The second factor was the articulationand framing of a ‘protective’ narrativearound the green areas which expressedtheir values (Ernstson and Sorlin, 2009).This narrative contained two dimensions—




a spatial dimension integrating previouslydiscrete areas into a whole, and interrelat-ing cultural history with conservation biol-ogy. The creation of the coherent narrativewas accomplished by using artifacts pro-duced by biologists and cultural historiansthat helped to weave areas and themestogether, and by creating social arenasthrough which this narrative could betransmitted. For instance, university scho-lars and civil servants were mobilised toperform bird surveys and habitat assess-ments, which in turn produced maps thatactivists used for strengthening the notionthat various park areas were ecologicallyconnected. Historical maps were used todemonstrate that green areas on both sidesof a lake were culturally and historicallyconnected, and that new buildings woulddisturb the intention of the original land-scape design. The narrative was spread toother social arenas and integrated intotexts, speeches and small-talk that reachednew audiences and mobilised more people.Together, these tactics created a broaderidentity for the park, which allowed linkingpreviously separate groups into a more uni-fied struggle, to fight off exploitation plans,as they could now be referred to what wasincreasingly deemed ‘The Ecopark’.

The case of the Stockholm NationalUrban Park illustrates four important rolesthat urban environmental movements canplay in protecting green space that can beused for food production and gardening, orprotecting space for generating ecosystemservices of importance for such activities(Table 4). First, such movements can coun-ter shorter-term and profit-driven interestson urban land through their engagement inplace-based struggles. This was clear in thecase of the National Urban Park, whereactivists halted the development of urbanland intended for roads, hotels and confer-ence centres.

Secondly, through their intervention inthe planning and use of urban space, envi-ronmental movements participate in shap-ing ecosystem processes and services(Ernstson, 2013). This is done through theprotection of areas such as nature reserves,urban parks and designated spaces forurban farming and allotment gardening,effectively placing certain areas outside the‘normal’ consumption of urban space.From an ecosystem viewpoint, this form ofprotective capacity increases the quality ofecological corridors through the city forvarious ecosystem service providers such asinsectivorous birds and wild bees (Ernstsonet al., 2010b; Ernstson, 2012), whichenhances actual and potential food produc-tion (see Table 4).

Thirdly, urban environmental move-ments can push existing administrative sys-tems to recognise the value of urban greenareas and water bodies. These movementscan serve to sensitise decision-makers to thedependency of urban people, plants and ani-mals on ecosystem processes. In this sense,these movements participate in a politicallycontested process of ‘programming’ theirarguments regarding the protection ofurban green space into the institutions andvalue systems that guide urban governance(Table 4).

Finally, movements engage in culturalinnovation by challenging longstandingideas of how we should understand ‘thecity’, its identity and for what and whom itexists. Movements have the ability to bringnew and lay narratives into public debatesthat can help to express the connectednessand dependency of urban dwellers on eco-system services such as local food.

4.2 Strategies of EnvironmentalMovements for Urban Food Production

More broadly, the strategies of formingurban environmental movements aimed at




Table 4. The roles and strategies for building urban environmental movements to protecturban green space, increase urban food production and address food security, particularly inthe face of major crises

Roles Strategies

Roles of movementsSpecific roles in urbandecision-makingand land use

Articulate the value of urban green space in competitionwith other landuse interests and thus physically andculturally play the role as a counter-force to shorter-termand profit-driven interests on landPhysically protect urban green spaces, thus upholding vitalparts of urban ecosystem processes and increasing thepotential to grow food in the event of major crisesPush existing administrative systems to recognise the valueof urban green areas and waterbodiesParticipate in creating new practices to translate thedependency of urbanites on ecological processes and thussensitise urban decision-making to respect ecosystemprocesses

Broader cultural and political role Culturally innovate and popularise the city as an‘ecosystem’, a ‘living city’ that includes animals, plantsand food productionDemonstrate conflicts between different urban interestsand thus present alternative development trajectoriesPut novel issues on the city agenda through theconstruction of cultural framings that link differentevents over space and time into a coherent narrativethat can challenge and shape current urban debates

Building movements: framing andmeta-framing strategy for activistsLinking green space struggles(at a more local level)

Interlink cultural history with conservation biology into‘protective stories’ to articulate values of specific(and more local) green areas (use artifacts, mobiliseexperts such as landscape architects, access/create socialarenas to narrate and spread such stories)

Interlinking local green area struggles Introduce theories from systems ecology and landscapeecology on how local green areas can be viewed asecologically interconnected

Interlinking green space struggleswith urban food production andurban food security

Introduce ‘peak scenarios’ in industrial food systems asincreasing the cost of food as a frame to linkenvironmental groups, allotment/community gardensand radical democracy and anti-capitalist groupsinterested in the decommodification of food, alongsidethe urban poor, interested in self-produced foodpossibilities

(continued)




protecting green areas and promoting foodsecurity may be distilled into two primaryactivities (Table 4): how activists frame theirissues and goals (Benford and Snow, 2000),and how they mobilise resources to takeaction (McCarthy and Zald, 1977; Diani,2003). Furthermore, these activities inher-ently also produce the scale of collectiveaction—local, city-wide and beyond—and

its capacity to generate systemic change inplanning and governance.

Framing is the process whereby socialmovement participants develop a collectiveunderstanding of a social problem and ofwhat needs to be done to solve it, while alsoproviding legitimation of the movement’sclaims and methods (Benford and Snow,2000). Framing thus results in including

Table 4. (Continued)

Roles Strategies

Introduce a rights-based perspective on food to link alsoto those groups (see above) demanding the universalright to healthy foodIntroduce the framing of urban food systems asvulnerable to major crises where knowledge, memoriesand spaces of food production are necessary

Building movements: mobilisationand organisational strategy for activistsLocal groups Generally support local groups that can protect, and

monitor, certain green areas

Centralised structure (could hamperevolution into an urban socialmovement)

Create an umbrella organisation with a central boardor committee to interlink local groups (which demandsless engagement from local groups)Organise annual meetings to elect representatives

Decentralised structure (couldfacilitate an urban socialmovement)

Use looser forms of coordination such as websites, blogsand similar technologies (which demand more from eachmobilising group to sustain the structure)Gather information about local struggles over time andspace in a web-based map that gathers local groups’ goals,tactics and experiencesOrganise yearly open forums to debate and deliberateon movement goals and tactics (for example, makinguse of the map)

Concrete methods (examples orderedfrom less to more direct action)

Lobbying, participating in stakeholder dialogues;arranging debatesMedia campaigns (using legal or illegal spaces)Fruit-tree planting and ‘seed bombs’ in green spacesStreet demonstrations and manifestationsDirect action, such as sit-ins, critical-mass events(to block traffic), occupying green space to stopdevelopment




some people (those agreeing upon goals andmethods), while excluding others. Framingis often performed by social movementleaders but rests upon a collective base andexisting knowledge structures. For groupsphysically engaging in food production andgardening, framing could be part-and-parcel of the formation of social-ecologicalmemory, as described earlier.

For a broad environmental movementaround urban food security, framing wouldneed to include the protection of sufficienturban green space to provide food for a largepopulation, while retaining knowledge andsocial-ecological memory for food produc-tion. This in turn would require multipleinterest groups to collaborate in producing a‘meta-narrative’ that manages to link or bal-ance their individual interests into a com-monly articulated ideological framework(Snow and Benford, 1992). Here we describea framing strategy that includes wider andwider groups towards a meta-frame for foodsecurity, being the broadest and most sys-temic issue addressed here.4

When only focusing on the protection orrestoring of local green space (and not foodproduction per se), local interest groups couldbe interlinked with city-wide conservationgroups, as was the case in the StockholmNational Urban Park. Further to strengthensuch scale shifts among conservation groups,activists could draw upon expert and layknowledge about ecological connectivitybetween urban green areas. This could come todownplay social differences among participantsand promote a cohesive identity and sharedconception of the situation. However, in orderalso to mobilise groups outside the conserva-tion camp, meta-frames could be constructedaround broader political issues such as eco-nomic ‘degrowth’ and the growing awarenessabout how the ‘peak’ scenarios of oil and phos-phor could increase food costs. This wouldserve to integrate environmental groups withallotment and community garden associations,

thus starting to integrate groups supportingsocial-ecological memory. Moreover, appealsto social justice could attract more radicalgroups aiming to decommodify food as well asmobilising the poor. Finally, to construct ameta-frame that explicitly integrates food secu-rity, activists would need to combine appealsto social justice for poor urbanites (who alwaystend to suffer in food crisis situations), whilepromoting an awareness of the vulnerability ofmany urban systems to major crises (in whichurban functions break down, influencing allcitizens).

In terms of resource mobilisation (Table4), a number of studies point to the need tosupport local groups capable of protectingand monitoring green areas while creatinginterlocks between them in the form of amore encompassing umbrella organisation,which comes to occupy a more central posi-tion (Diani, 1995; Ansell, 2003; Ernstsonet al., 2008). This provides a functional divi-sion of labour among movement partici-pants in which some become ‘experts ofresistance’ while others serve to protect,monitor and develop fine-tuned knowledgeof local green areas (Ernstson et al., 2008).Such core–periphery network structuresreduce social distance between groups whilethe collaborative structure demands littleinput by most, thus remaining stable overtime. However, in centralising the power tospeak on behalf of the movement, an out-come of this strategy can make it difficult toincorporate more radical perspectives intothe movement.

Other, more horizontal and decentra-lised organisational structures could insteadbe nurtured through developing sharedresources such as websites, blogs, web-based maps and similar technologies. Thiswould lend more autonomy to participatinggroups, increasing the diversity of framingsand the repertoire of action—from lobby-ing and stakeholder dialogues to streetdemonstrations and direct action such as




sit-ins and occupations of urban greenspace to halt development. Furthermore, byletting experienced activists, and research-ers, share information about historicalstruggles over green space, activists and thepublic can learn about spatial and temporalpatterns of protests in their city, creatingsentiments of unity. Other more hands-onstrategies are given in Table 4.

5. Conclusion: Gardens, GreenSpace and Governance

This paper has highlighted an often forgot-ten issue in the governance of urban foodsecurity—the role of green space insidecities as a complement to global food sys-tems when such are temporally disturbeddue to armed conflicts, resource scarcities,environmental shocks or volatile financialsystems. We have considered the potentialof urban allotment gardens for safeguard-ing and transmitting knowledge of how togrow food and of urban environmentalmovements for protecting green space fromdevelopment and for re-imagining cities inwhich such gardening occurs. We havedone so through historical analyses indicat-ing the importance of urban gardening forcoping with major crises during the 20thcentury and through in-depth analyses ofcontemporary case studies of urban allot-ment gardens and urban social movementsin Stockholm, Sweden. We have empha-sised the importance of the ecosystems onwhich these processes play out so as tohighlight the dependency of urbanites onthe ecosystem services.

One major conclusion from this paper isthat governance for urban resilience mustlearn from history when planning to avoidcrisis. The allotment movements wereignited by philanthropists of their timewhen trying to improve living conditionsfor the urban poor. They met considerable

resistance, but their work surprisinglyshowed their full potential as resilience-builders during the great wars of the 20thcentury when practical knowledge of howto produce food was transmitted from allot-ment gardens across cities of the Westernworld. This occurred less than 70 years ago.

These analyses evidence the power ofurban gardening, environmental move-ments and associated social and politicalprocesses for enhancing the resilience ofurban people with respect to uncertainties,complexities and major crises. Urban allot-ment gardens, the artifacts they containand the social processes they enable, serveas collective mnemonic devices for transfer-ring long-term social-ecological memoriesof how to grow food and successfully navi-gate food shortages when cities becomedivorced from the global economy in timesof crisis. Feedback loops between socialgroups and ecosystem processes in allot-ment gardens continually reinforce suchknowledge while also transforming theurban system in which they are embeddedby creating locally adapted organisms andlandscape features. This knowledge andthese practices serve to renew and reorga-nise the capacity of urban social-ecologicalsystems to generate food and associatedecosystem services that regulate food pro-duction. Social-ecological memories arehence one factor limiting successful foodproduction in cities. New governance mea-sures may need to be developed, to enhancethe capacity of urban gardens to capture,store and transmit practical knowledge offood production into the future.

The other major factor limiting the effi-cacy of urban gardening for meaningfullevels of food production is a lack of suffi-cient space for doing so. Urban green spacesare valuable public commodities and socompetition among powerful interestgroups to develop these lands is strong andhighly politicised. While city planning has




been championed as the main vehicle bywhich to save arable urban spaces, it too is ahighly politicised process heavily influencedby vested interest groups. Political civicsociety groups are often unrecognised ele-ments in the urban governance for foodsecurity. For this reason we emphasise theimportance of political and civic actions inthe form of urban environmental move-ments for preserving existing ecosystems,crafting new ones and linking them intolarger, spatially connected landscape ecolo-gies and to issues of social justice. Thismeans not just the protection of existingurban gardens, but also preserving largertracts at the urban periphery (Barthel andIsendahl, 2012; Moustier, 2007). The abilityof social movements to preserve and revita-lise such urban landscapes depends both onthe network structure of their associationsand on their ability to craft meaningfulinterpretative frameworks that can be popu-larised to mobilise social, cultural and eco-nomic capital to sustain collective action.This political turn is a potential addition tothe resilience theory, since our subtle con-siderations of the roles of political agencyand the nature of controversy highlightforces underlying the emergence of popularperceptions about cities, underlying framesused in urban decision-making, and there-fore move future trajectories in social-ecological systems.

Current environmental movements thatwork to protect ecosystems in cities—forexample, parks, trees, meadows and forests—safeguard (maybe unintentionally) futureinsurance values. Many such ecosystems canbe converted to horticulture and agriculturein response to future food shortages.Additional environmental history studies areneeded to analyse the roles of gardens andagriculture as urban functions in differenthistorical time windows of crises, and in dif-ferent cities, in order to assess the true

insurance value of fertile urban gardens. Ourperspective highlights that the governance ofresilience must allow for seemingly sub-optimal or redundant solutions—like theobsolete urban gardens in relation to the effec-tive global food systems—which followsfrom resilience thinking since redundancy, asprinciple, is a fertile ground for a diversity ofresponses to uncertain futures (Gundersonand Holling, 2002).

Funding

The authors acknowledge the Swedish researchcouncil Formas for providing funding for thisresearch, including the following grants forSUPER, ‘‘Sustainable Urban Planning forEcosystem Services and Resilience’’ and for‘‘Kunskap for byggande av urban resiliens’’ andfor MOVE on ‘‘Socioecological Movements andTransformative Collective Action in UrbanEcosystems’’.

Notes

1. Of course, their ability to do so depends onthe intensity and length of the crisis.

2. This is not to discount their importancemore recently for food production. TheCuban case is a conspicuous and tellingexample (see for example, Altieri et al.,1999).

3. Pothukuchi and Kaufman (2000, p. 113)define the food system as ‘‘the chain of activ-ities connecting food production, processing,distribution, consumption, and waste man-agement, as well as all the associated regula-tory institutions and activities’’.

4. In analysing the building of broader-spanningsocial movements, we acknowledge that foodsecurity is deeply entangled with class andrace politics. Here we do not address theseimportant dimensions but leave this tocoming publications. We furthermore viewthe local capacity of growing food as a com-plement to the international and rural-to-urban trade of food, as stated in the introduc-tion. We are thus not advocating or analysing




‘a return to the local’, or a communitarian orsurvivalist mode of urban development orgovernance, but our interest lies in articulat-ing tangible things that can be done—andindeed are being done—under present condi-tions of capitalist food production and urbandevelopment that can link the ‘local’ to the‘international’ to sustain the capacity of grow-ing food in face of a larger crisis. This is ofcourse not to say that more radical forms ofaction are not important to analyse to under-stand the urban governance of food security.

References

Andersson, E., Barthel, S. and Ahrne, K. (2007)Measuring social-ecological dynamics behindthe generation of ecosystem services, Ecologi-cal Applications, 17(5), pp. 1267–1278.

Ansell, C. K. (2003) Community embeddednessand collaborative governance in the SanFrancisco Bay area environmental move-ment, in: M. Diani and D. McAdam (Eds)Social Movements and Networks: RelationalApproaches to Collective Action, pp. 123–144.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barthel, S. (2008) Recalling urban nature: linkingcity people to ecosystem services. PhD thesis,Stockholm University (http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/researchnews/acoevolutionarypeoplenatureprocess.5.87749a811cbd4c4fb4800012940.html).

Barthel, S. and Isendahl, C. (2012) Urban gar-dens, agricultures and water management:sources of resilience for long-term food secu-rity in cities, Ecological Economics,DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.06.018.

Barthel, S., Folke, C. and Colding, J. (2010)Social-ecological memory in urban gardens:retaining the capacity for management ofecosystem services, Global EnvironmentalChange, 20(2), pp. 255–265.

Barthel, S., Sorlin, S. and Ljungqvist, J. (2010)Innovative memory and resilient cities:echoes from ancient Constantinople, in: P.Sinclair, F. Herschend, C. Isendahl and G.Nordquist (Eds) The Urban Mind: Culturaland Environmental Dynamics, pp. 391–406.Uppsala: Uppsala University Press.

Barthel, S., Crumley, C. L., Svedin, U. andFolke, C. (2013) Pockets of social-ecological

memory: combating bio-cultural erosion inlandscapes of food production, Ecology andSociety (forthcoming).

Barthel, S., Parker, J., Folke, C. and Colding, J.(2013) Urban gardens: pockets of social-ecological memory, in: K. G. Tidball and M.E. Krasny (Eds) Greening in the Red Zone:Disaster, Resilience, and Urgent Biophilia, ch.11. Dordrecht: Springer (forthcoming): ISBN978-90-481-9946-4.

Bendt, P., Barthel, S. and Colding, J. (2013) Civicgreening and environmental learning in public-access community gardens in Berlin, Landscapeand Urban Planning, 109(1), pp. 18–30.

Benford, R. D. and Snow, D. A. (2000) Framingprocesses and social movements: an overviewand assessment, Annual Review of Sociology,26, pp. 611–639.

Berkes, F. (1999) Sacred Ecology: Traditional Eco-logical Knowledge and Resource Management.Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis.

Berkes, F. and Folke, C. (2002) Back to thefuture: ecosystem dynamics and local knowl-edge, in: L. H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling(Eds) Panarchy: Understanding Transforma-tions in Human and Natural Systems, pp.121–146. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke, C. (2003) Navi-gating Social-ecological Systems: Building Resi-lience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Bolund, P. and Hunhammar, S. (1999) Ecosys-tem services in urban areas, Ecological Eco-nomics, 29, pp. 293–301.

Born, B. and Purcell, M. (2006) Avoiding thelocal trap: scale and food systems in planningresearch, Journal of Planning Education andResearch, 26(2), pp. 195–207.

Castells, M. (1983) The City and the Grassroots.London: E. Arnold.

Climo, J. J. and Cattell, M. G. (2002) SocialMemory and History: Anthropological Perspec-tives. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Colding, J. and Barthel, S. (2013) The potentialof ‘urban green commons’ in the resiliencebuilding of cities, Ecological Economics, 86,pp. 156–166.

Connerton, P. (1989) How Societies Remember.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crouch, D. and Ward, C. (1997) The Allotment:Its Landscape and Culture, 2nd edn. London:Faber and Faber.




Crumley, C. L. (1994) Historical Ecology: Culture,Knowledge and Changing Landscapes. SantaFe, NM: School of American Research Press.

Deutsch, L. (2004) Global trade, food productionand ecosystem support: making the interactionsvisible. PhD thesis, Stockholm University.

Diani, M. (1995) Green Networks. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.

Diani, M. (2003) Introduction: social move-ments, contentious actions, and social net-works: ‘from metaphor to substance’?, in: M.Diani and D. McAdam (Eds) Social Move-ments and Networks: Relational Approaches toCollective Action, pp. 1–18. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Ernstson, H. (2011) Transformative collectiveaction: a network approach to transformativechange in ecosystem-based management, in:O. Bodin and C. Prell (Eds) Social Networksand Natural Resource Management: Uncover-ing the Social Fabric of Environmental Govern-ance, pp. 255–287. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Ernstson, H. (2013) The social production ofecosystem services: environmental justiceand ecological complexity in urbanized land-scapes, Landscape and Urban Planning,109(1), pp. 7–17.

Ernstson, H. and Sorlin, S. (2009) Weaving pro-tective stories: connective practices to articu-late holistic values in Stockholm NationalUrban Park, Environment and Planning A,41(6), pp. 1460–1479.

Ernstson, H., Sorlin, S. and Elmqvist, T. (2008)Social movements and ecosystem services: therole of social network structure in protectingand managing urban green areas in Stock-holm, Ecology and Society, 13(2), 39 (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art39/).

Ernstson, H., Barthel, S., Andersson, E. andBorgstrom, S. T. (2010) Scale-crossing bro-kers and network governance of urban eco-system services: the case of Stockholm,Ecology and Society, 15(4), 28 (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art28/).

Ernstson, H., Leeuw, S. E. van der, Redman, C.L. and Meffert, D. J. et al. (2010) Urban tran-sitions: on urban resilience and human-dominated ecosystems, Ambio, 39(8), pp.531–545.

Fraser, E. D. G. and Rimas, A. (2010) Empires ofFood: Feast, Famine and the Rise and Fall of

Civilizations. New York: Random HouseBooks.

Gunderson, L. H. and Holling, C. S. (Eds) (2002)Panarchy: Understanding Transformations inHuman and Natural Systems. Washington,DC: Island Press.

Halbwachs, M. (1952/1992) On CollectiveMemory. Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress.

Harvey, D. (1990) The Condition of Postmoder-nity. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geogra-phy of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell.

Humphreys, D. J. (1996) The allotment move-ment in England and Wales, Allotment andLeisure Gardener, 3.

IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricul-tural Knowledge Science and Technology forDevelopment) (2009) Agriculture at a Cross-roads. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Lee, S. and Webster, C. (2006) Enclosure of theurban commons, GeoJournal, 66(1/2), pp.27–42.

Lindhagen, A. (1916) Kolonitradgardar och plan-terade gardar [Allotment gardens and plantedgardens]. Rekolid, Stockholm.

McCarthy, J. D. and Zald, M. N. (1977) Resourcemobilization and social movements: a partialtheory, American Journal of Sociology, 82(6),pp. 1212–1241.

McIntosh, R., Tainter, J. A. and McIntosh, S. K.(2000) The Way the Wind Blows: Climate, His-tory, and Human Action. New York: Colom-bia University Press.

McKenna, J., Quinn, R. J., Donnelly, D. J. andCooper, J. A. (2008) Accurate mental mapsas an aspect of local ecological knowledge(LEK): a case study from Lough Neagh,Northern Ireland, Ecology and Society, 13(1),13 (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art13/).

Miller, J. R. (2005) Biodiversity conservation andthe extinction of experience, Trends in Ecology& Evolution, 20, pp. 430–434.

Misztal, B. A. (2003) Theories on Social Remem-bering. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Mols, C. M. M. and Visser, M. E. (2002) Greattits can reduce caterpillar damage in appleorchards, Journal of Applied Ecology, 39, pp.888–899.

Moran, D. (1990) The Allotment Movement inBritain. New York: Peter Lang.




Moustier, P. (2007) Urban Horticulture in Africaand Asia, An Efficient Corner Food Supplier.ISHS Acta Horticulturae, 762, pp. 145–158.

Nazarea, D. V. (1998) Cultural Memory and Bio-diversity. Tuscon, AZ: Arizona UniversityPress.

Polyani, M. (1966) The Tacit Dimension.London: Routledge.

Pothukuchi, K. and Kaufman, J. L. (2000) Thefood system: a stranger to the planning field,Journal of the American Planning Association,66(2), pp. 113–124.

Pyle, R. M. (1978) The extinction of experience,Horticulture, 56, pp. 64–67.

Round, J., Williams, C. and Rodgers, P. (2010)The role of domestic food production ineveryday life in post-Soviet Ukraine, Annalsof the Association of American Geographers,100(5), pp. 1197–1211.

Sassen, S. (1991) The Global City: New York,London, Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-versity Press.

Scott, J. C. (1988) Seeing Like a State: How Cer-tain Schemes to Improve the Human ConditionHave Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.

Select Committee on Environmental, Transportand Regional Affairs (1998) The future forallotments. Fifth report to The House of Com-mons, HC 560-I, June.

Sensiper, L. D. S. (1998) The role of tacit knowl-edge in group innovation, California Manage-ment Review, 40, pp. 112–132.

Smith, A. (1776/1977) An Inquiry into the Natureand Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.

Snow, D. and Benford, R. (1992) Master framesand cycles of protest, in: A. D. Morris and C.M. Mueller (Eds) Frontiers in Social Move-ment Theory, pp. 133–155. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.

Steel, C. (2010) Hungry City: How Food ShapesOur Lives. London: Vintage Books.

Walker, R. (2007) The Country in the City. Seat-tle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice:Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Wright, J. (2009) Sustainable Agriculture andFood Security in an Era of Oil Scarcity: Les-sons from Cuba. London: Earthscan.




Documents

Barthel Et Al - 2013 Food and Green Space in Cities- A Resilience Lens on Gardens and Urban Environmental Movements