2018EMES Conferences selected papers

This article/publication is based upon work from COST Action EMPOWER-SE, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology).

Welfare societies in transition

Roskilde, 16-17 April 2018

Funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European Union

José Luis Fernández Casadevante KoisNerea Morán AlonsoÁngel Calle Collado Nuria del VisoRoskilde, April 2018

Cultivating commons in the heart of the city. Madrid community gardens against austerity urbanism

ECSP-3EMESPolanyi-04

1

3rdEMES-PolanyiSelectedConferencePapers(2018)

Cultivatingcommonsintheheartofthecity.Madridcommunitygardensagainstausterityurbanism.

JoséLuisFernándezCasadevanteKois,InternationalUniversityofAndalusia(UNIA),GARUA,FRAVM,Spain.1

NereaMoránAlonso,UniversidadPolitécnicadeMadridandGerminando,Spain.2ÁngelCalleCollado,InstituteofSociologyandPeasantStudies(ISEC)atUniversityofCordoba,

Comunaria.net,MunicipalResearchandSupportNetwork(REDINAM).3NuriadelViso,FUHEM.4

Acityismorethanaplaceinspace,itisadramaintime.P.GeddesOursocietiesareatacriticaljuncture,themultidimensionalcrisisthattheyaregoingthroughleadsthemtoinitiateeco-socialtransitions.Facedwiththiscomplexanddifficulttask,theideaofthecommonshasreappearedwithforce.Anotionthathasgainedpresenceinphilosophical,economic or legal debates (Negri, Ostrom, Federici, Mattei, Bollier, Bauwens, Mies, Laville,Stavrides,LavalyDardot...);ithasbeenusedespeciallytodenounceprivatizationprocessesor"newenclosures"andtonamethealternativepracticesthatarebuildingalternativerealities.IntheSouthernEuropeancitiestheausterityurbanism(Peck,2012)isbeingconfrontedbyanalternative social practices ecosystem inspired by the commons logic. InMadrid communitygardenscanbehighlightedasaninitiativesthathavegonefromillegalitytothecoproductionofpublicpolicies,linkingsocialmovementsreclaimsandmunicipalism.1.Fromtraditionaltonewcommons.

1JoséLuisFernándezCasadevanteKoisisasociologistandinternationalexpertonfoodsovereigntyforUNIA.HeisalsoamemberoftheworkcooperativeGARUAandhasbeenaneighbourhoodactivistformorethanadecade,involvedcurrentlyinpromotingurbanagricultureprojectsthroughtheUrbanGardensoftheRegionalFederationofNeighbourhoodAssociations(FRAVM).HisblogcanbefoundatRaicesenelasfalto.2NereaMoránAlonsoisanarchitecturedoctoratUniversidadPolitécnicadeMadrid.Shehasparticipatedinvariousprojectsandresearchnetworksonagrofoodsystems,neighbourhoodregenerationandsustainableandresilientcities.SheismemberofGerminando,acooperativecommittedtotraining,research,awareness-raisingandtechnicalsupportinparticipatoryurbanandfoodsystemplanning.Sheisanurbanagricultureandagroecologicalactivist,activecurrentlyintheMadridAgroecologicalplatform.3ÁngelCalleColladoisSociologyprofessorattheUniversityofCórdoba(intheISECInstituteofSociologyandPeasantStudies).Hisresearchinterestsrangefrompoliticalagroecology,sustainability,commonsandnewglobalmovements.ItispartofComunaria.net,aspacededicatedtoappliedresearchincommonsandthemotorgroupoftheMunicipalResearchandSupportNetwork(REDINAM)whosefieldofworkrevolvesaroundtheprogressandchallengesofmunicipalism.4NuriadelVisohasaMastersinAnthropologyfromtheUniversidadNacionaldeEducaciónaDistancia(UNED)andadegreeinjournalismfromtheUniversidadComplutensedeMadridwithaDiplomainAdvancedPeaceandSecuritystudiesfromUNED.Shehasworkedasajournalistoneconomicaffairsanddevelopmentaid.Since2004,shehasworkedintheFUHEM(CIPyFUHEMEcosocial)Foundationonissuesofsocio-ecologicalconflicts,peaceandsecurity.SheispartoftheeditorialboardofthemagazinePapelesderelacionesecosocialesycambioglobal.

2

Traditional commons have been highly resilient, being able to manage in a sustainable anddemocratic way natural assets that were essential for the reproduction of communities(common forests and meadows, fishermen's guilds practising small-scale and sustainablefishing,collective-creditinitiatives,irrigationpractices).InSpaincommonsresultinmorethanfourmillionhectaresof forest andmountains, thousandsof artisanal fishermenorganized inlocal guilds, peasant networks that protect their seeds in order to safeguard biodiversity orassociationsof irrigators(comunidadesderegantes inSpanish)fosteredbylocalgovernmentsandfarmers,liketheancestralWaterCourtofValencia.Commons are a social relationshipmore than anything else, Antonio Lafuentewould definethem as a successful strategy of capacity building for a human group (Lafuente, 2010). Ananthropologicallyandculturallyadaptedsolutionforsustainableanddemocraticmanagementof strategic resources. Many words in different languages around the world reflect thecommunitywork inherent incommons:minga (Peru),ayni (Bolivia), tequio (Mexico),auzolan(Basque Country), hacenderas (Castilla), andecha (Asturias), tornajeira (Galicia), tornallom(Valencia),coor(Ireland),mutirão(Brazil)...Theseformsofmanagement,adaptedtodifferentgeographical and cultural contexts, helped to create synergies between territories,communitiesandeconomiesthatensuredthesustainablestewardshipofcertainresources.Commonsofferawayoforganizingproduction,andwhatismorerelevantasenseofbelongingand collective identity, and provide some social cohesion to the peasant settlements. Themanagement of these resources structured a peasant culture, these spaces hosted fairs andfestivals, popular and sports games, social and religious events, becoming a key element forpeasantsociality.Inthenameofcustom,amoraleconomy(Thompson,1995)wasarticulatedfromthesespaces,which placed the collective well-being above the individual benefit and the meeting ofcommunity needs over economic rationalization. They did not guarantee a redistribution ofwealth produced in a territory, they only guarantee access to these goods by a part of thepopulation,especiallythemostvulnerablegroups(poor,women...).Thecapitalismexpansionintroducedachangeineconomiclogic,whichMaxWebersummedupbystatingthatthequestionsthatsoughttosolvetheoldeconomicorder,basedonlandandcommon goods, and those to be solved by the emerging capitalism, were qualitativelydifferent:

“[...]WherethetraditionaleconomywonderedhowcanIgiveworkandsustenancetothegreatestnumberofmenwiththispieceofland?Capitalismasks:howcanIproduceasmanycropsaspossibleforthemarketusingasfewmenaspossible?”(Weber,1987)

Although the social innovation that the commons represent must be highlighted, it is notadvisabletoretrospectivelyidealizethepast.Itwouldbemisleadingtofallintothedescriptionoffeudalismasaruraldemocracywhereaprimitiveegalitarianeconomyprevailed.Thesecustomarypracticesintheorganizationofthousandsofpeasantandindigenoussocietieshaveremainedcorneredfordecadesinthemarginsofoursocietiesuntil,inrecentyears,theyhavebeengainingprominenceinthehandofsocialmovements.

3

Theresource,thedefinedcommunityandtherulesofgovernanceareaninseparablerealityasOstrom(1990)hasstudiedindifferentcontextsthroughouttheworld.Thefeaturessharedbythe societies she studied usually refer to rural environments, with a small population,predominantly face to face social relations, andwhere social reproductionwas linked to thereproduction of resources and the participation was an imperative. Following its exhaustiveinvestigations,themainrulesthatwoulddefinetheoperationofthecommongoodswouldbe:

1. Clearspecificationofthelimits.Thepeoplewhohavetherighttoextracttheresourceandtheresourceitselfmustbeclearlyspecifiedanddelimited

2. Coherencebetween local conditionsand the rulesof appropriationand collaboration.The appropriation rules that limit the moment, the site, the technology and/or theamountoftheresourcethatcanbeextracted.

3. Agreements on collective decisions. The majority of the individuals affected by theoperatingrulescanparticipateinthemodificationofthem.

4. Supervisionandcontrolofcompliancewiththerules.5. Provisionofsanctions.6. Mechanismsfortheresolutionofconflicts.7. Minimum recognition of the right to self-organize. The rights of users to design their

owninstitutionsarenotthreatenedbyexternalgovernmentalauthorities.Commonscanbeconsideredasexperiencesarisingfromneedbycenturiesofpractice,whichinvite us to investigate the lessons learned from initiatives that dealt with the conflict ofcollective organization, power management or territory stewardship in terms of socio-environmentalsustainability. Inspiringpracticesthathavecometothepresent,claimingtheirvalidityandtheirneedtoreinventthemselvesinordertoadapttoothergeographic,cultural,economic and environmental contexts. The "new commons" have been emerging during thelast decades, like practices that are trying to close (politic, food, energy) cycles in a certainterritory,helpingtodemocratizefragmentsoftheworld.Groupsthatdevelopdifferentformsof production (solidarity based economy, cooperative work, fair trade, cooperatives for anenergy transition, agro-ecological and seeds networks...), learning (teaching cooperatives,cooperative schools...), coexistence (social centres, communitygardens, cooperative formsoforganizing care, housing cooperatives, recovery of abandoned villages...), taking care ofthemselves (mutual societies, health cooperatives, parenting groups...), and relating to newtechnologiessothattheyareaccessibleandnotcommercialized(freesoftware,freeculture...);inshort,newinstitutionscapableofsustainingandmakingotherlifestylesdesirable.Newcommonstranslatesomeof their featuresandmanagementmechanisms intoadvancedindustrialenvironments,urbanspaces,denselypopulated,withastrongimplementationoftheStateandwithapredominanceofweakersocialties.Theriseof individualismduringthe lastdecadeshaserodedtheabilityofpeopletocooperate(Sennet,2016).Fragilityofterritorialties,growing social inequality, prevailing competitiveness or changes in work models with anincreaseinturnover,instabilityandprecariousness,makeitdifficulttoestablishbondsoftrustwith other people. A dynamic that discourages the personal effort involved in engaging incooperativedynamics,whichrequiresaconsiderableamountoftimeandtheestablishmentofrituals to develop these skills. Thinking of human groups that perform complex tasks

4

collectively, from a football team to a symphony orchestra, gives an idea of the hours oftrainingandrehearsalneededfortheiraccomplishment.Borders of shared resources in the new commons, their appropriation processes, and thecommunityof users involved in theirmaintenance, aremore complex todefine than that oftraditionalcommons(ParkerandJohansson2011).Althoughovertimecommunitieshaveneverbeen compartmentalized and have maintained translocal relationships, the subsistence ofcommunities linked to new commons does not depend on the collective and sustainablepreservationoftheseresources.Thisdoesnotmeanthatuserswouldnotobtainsomekindofbenefit (economic, socialorpolitical),but thatbeyond theuseof the resource for theirownsubsistence, there areothermotivations that aremorepresent,whether they areof a civic,political or environmental nature (Castro Coma and Martí Costa 2016). Finally, regulatoryframeworks and the structure of ownership in urban spaces require negotiation andcooperation processes with local governments, and community access refers mainly togovernance ormanagement, and not somuch to ownership of the resources (Barthel et al.2010).Thepracticesofthenewcommonspointtoopendebatesandtensions(table1).

Table1.Traditionalcommonsandnewcommonscharacteristics.Traditionalcommons NewCommons

Ruralareas. Urbanareas.Thebordersandlimitsofthecommunitywereveryclear.

Inmoreliquid,openandelectivesocieties,criteriaforbelongingtothecommunityandtoaccesstotheusesandrightsofnewcommons,aremore

flexible.Theparticipationwascompulsorytosatisfyprimarynecessitiesandtogain

accesstocollectiverights.

Theparticipationismoreflexibleandtheneedssatisfiedarelessprimary(participation,culture,

safety...).Thetraditionalcommonssupposedamoraleconomy(Thompson,1994)thatguaranteedthesurvivalofthemost

vulnerablegroups.

Newcommonsaremostlylinkedtoamiddleclasssocialcomposition.Theyhavedifficulttolinkwithmostdisadvantagedsocialandethnicminority

groups.Thecommonswerepre-capitalist

practices.Newcommonsworkinsidecapitalism

decommercializingspacesandpractices.Theyareoutlinesofpost-capitalistsocio-economic

practices.Genderoreconomicinequalitiesembededthegovernanceofthese

practices.

Newcommonsgivemoreattentiontogenderandincorporatecaredynamicsofthehumangroups

butalsoembededthegenderoreconomicinequalities.

Autonomouspractices,operatingbeyondthemarketandbeyondthestate,focusingoncollectiveproperty

Thereisacontinuitybetweenpublicgoodsandnewcommons,orpublic-stateandpublic-

communityrelationships.Thecommonsweresustainable

practicesforstrategicresourcesfortheNewcommonscanalsobeconsideredpracticesaimedtoshorteconomicandpoliticalcircuitsand

5

communitysocialreproduction.Localsolutionstoalocalproblem.

toreducetheecologicalfootprint.Localinputsintoglobalcrisis.

Themainvirtueoftheupdatingofthereflectionsonthecommonsisthatitbroadensthefieldofpolitics,warningaboutthestatecentrismofspeechesandemancipatorypractices,andthefalserationalityofthemarketasanefficientallocatorofresources.Inacontextofenergycrisis,climate change, increased inequality or growing political disaffection towards representativeliberal systems,expressed in the formofoutrage in the streetsor in the riseof theextremeright,theyleaveusnomargin:citizensareinitiatingatransitionthatcannotbepostponed.Commonsandnewcommonscannotofferanall-encompassingnarrativeofsocialchange.Butthey do invite the contestation of authoritarian institutions and neoliberal drifts, theconstructionofnewpracticesbasedonagreatersocialroleandthejointclaimofahabitableplanetforthehumanspecies.2.Greencommonsandcommunitygardens.Since its origin in the 70s in the USA, community gardens have been conceived asneighbourhoodcommons(Linn2009).Meetingspacesthatintensifiedthesocialrelationsoftheinhabitantsinthedegradedareasordisadvantagedneighbourhoods,throughtheinvolvementofthepeople inthedesign,constructionandmanagementoftheseareas.Localcommunitiesarenoturbanoreconomicstructuredeterminedtheyaredeliberatelyconstructedgroups,theresult of social practices. The construction of neighbourhood commons is a key exercise inshaping these communities of interests in urban environments through their involvement incollectiveactions.Community gardens, as a typology of urban green commons (Colding and Barthel 2013)contribute to urban resilience building, so that when community management is continuedover time, processes of recovery, generation and transmission of social-ecological memoryhavebeenidentified(Bartheletal.2010;Bartheletal.2015)collectingknowledgeadaptedtotheplaceandlostformostofthecitizens.Thispresentsapotentialforthedevelopmentofnewforms of ecological urban management, which recognize, integrate and coordinate diverseknowledge.Communitygardenscallintoquestioncentralizedandexpertpracticeinurbandesign,claimingcitizenrelevanceandalsoincorporatingtheagro-ecologicaldimension,proposingthequalityofurban life in terms of interdependence between people and ecodependence with nature(Riechmann2012).Spaces devoted to urban agriculture, beyond food production, fulfill ecological and socialfunctionsthatcontributetoincreasequalityoflife,resilienceandsustainabilityofurbanareas.Theinsertionoforchardsintheurbanspacecontributestoclosemetaboliccyclesinproximity,to improve theurbanenvironment (Langemeyeretal.2016;AubryandPourias2013)and toincrease biodiversity (Speak et al. 2015). They also foster social interaction, social cohesion,mutual support and the formation of networks; enabling intergenerational and interculturalrelations; they increase the sense of ownership and responsibility for open spaces, and

6

facilitate processes of identity and empowerment of communities (Kingsley and Townsend2006; Firth et al. 2011; Camps-Calvet et al. 2015). They are also an instrument of ecologicalawareness, helping tomake visible processes that in highly urbanized environments are noteasilyappreciated,suchastheseasonalityofcropsortheproductionoffooditself(ViljoenandBohn 2014). Additionally they improve the urban landscape, revitalizing degraded spaces,creating new local centralities, andbecomingpart of thenetworkof open spaces and greeninfrastructure (Arredondo 2013; Breuste 2010). Finally, they present a socio-politicaldimension, related to the reflection on the urban model and the management of commonresources.3.Austerityurbanismand15Mmovement.The 2008 financial collapse meant the end of the illusion of a model of economic growthprogressively disconnected from the satisfaction of social needs, which in Spain has beencharacterizedbyamodelof landmanagementsubordinatedtospeculationandaccumulationofwealth.Theurbanpolicieshavebeendeeplyconditionedby the realestatesector,oneofthemain sources ofmunicipal financing. After the outbreak of the financial crisis, the citieshave concentrated the most dramatic socio-economic impacts (indebtedness, evictions,unemployment,energypoverty,deteriorationofpublicservices...),whichhaveledtoastronglossofsocialcohesionandastrongincreaseininequality.This process was aggravated by the application of an austerity urbanism (Peck 2012) thatopenedthedoortotheprivatesector inserviceprovisionandmanagement,giving itanevermore important role in the definition of strategic guidelines for urban transformation. Thisrestructuringofurbanpolicies (Sevilla2015) isbasedonprocesses suchas thepromotionofmegaprojects and mega-events, public–private partnerships (PPPs), opening up the mostinteresting sectors to foreign investment, uneven public service provision depending on thepurchasing power of different neighbourhoods, gentrification, and the commodification ofsectorssuchasenvironmentalmanagement,greenareasoreventhepublicspaceitself.Investors, property developers and large corporations have driven the creepingcommodificationofthecity,withtheresultthatmarkets–disconnectedfromsocialneedsandfree from political oversight – determine the direction taken by urban governments. Andcitizenshavesufferedthedramaticconsequences:marketauthoritarianismandtheerosionoflocaldemocracies,boomingcorruption,anincreaseinenvironmentallyunsustainableprocessesandanexponentialgrowthininequality.AdynamicthathasbeenespeciallyaggressiveinthecountriesofSouthernEurope.Thiscyclicalmovement throughout history has provoked the activation of society's self-protectionmechanisms, inwhatPolanyidefined in “TheGreatTransformation”asa 'doublemovement'(Polanyi2007).The threatofa free-marketutopiacapableof re-politicizingeveryday lifeanddeployingmultiplealternativeprojectsaimedatsubordinatingtheeconomytopolitics.Theofficialcrisisnarrativebeginstobequestionedinthepublicspherewiththe15Mirruption,inaugurating themost intense collective action cycle in our recent history. A protest whoseradicalismhasbeentore-signifythenotionofdemocracy,recoverlostsociabilityanddisobey

7

themandatetodissolveintoindividualisticresignation.TheiconicimagewouldbethePuertadel SolandPlazaCatalunyacamps,becauseamong the tentsandunder thecanvasawnings,micro-citiesweresetupintheheartofthebigcity,akindofglimpseofotherpossiblecities.Fragilecollectivearchitectureswerebuiltwithrecycledmaterials,givingrisetoanimprovisedurbanism of kindness and care, reserving spaces for children's areas, libraries, computers,dining rooms, solarpanelsandorchards. These campsandassemblies inwhich thousandsofpeople lived together, more than new political organizations, generated new forms ofrelationshipandanewatmospheremorepronetosocialchange.Thecampswereametaphorforanotherwayofconceivingandinhabitingthecitythatwouldbe deployed throughout the territory, re-signifying old practices and promoting new ones.Among thediverseandheterogeneousdynamics thatemerged there,wewill focuson thosethathavebeenmechanismsof social self-defense,whichare simultaneouslyhelping tomeetbasicneedsand to recover thedamagedsocial tiesofurbanenvironments.StrugglesagainstevictionsandtherecoveryofbuildingscarriedoutbythePAH(PlataformadeAfectadosporlaHipoteca,orPlatform for theaffectedbymortgage), community foodpantries for families invulnerable situations, neighbourhood networks against the health exclusion of immigrants,“citizen's tides” for the protection of public services (thematic demonstrations related toeducation, health, social services... where citizens and professionals converged), recovery ofbuildings to construct social centres or occupation of vacant plots to cultivate communitygardens.Adiverseecosystemof initiativesdrivenbyneighbourhoodentities, neighbourhoodassembliesorcitizen'splatforms.Responses thathavebeenactively ignoredandunderestimatedby the large institutions, butthat suppose the outline of a cooperative urbanism, intensive in citizen protagonism and inmoredemocraticwaysofunderstandingthepublic. Innovative initiativesthatstartupfromasubstrateofsocialcooperation,whicharisefromlivingprocessesratherthanfromimperviousmodelsandadministrativelyformalizedinstitutions,anddosonotinarestrictedway,butwithanemphasisonthedemocratizationofsocialandeconomicrelations. It isnotanewpoliticalphilosophy, but rather, a practice that develops transitions to other economic and politicalsystems.Initiativesthattransformpeople'slivesthroughexperienceandsimultaneouslypromoteradicalchangesona small scale. Like the realutopias, investigated inhalfworldbyErikOlinWright(2014),where the pragmatically possible is not independent of our imagination, but, on thecontrary,takesshapefromourvisionsofrealityandourwaysofinhabitingitinadifferentway.4.Municipalism,awalkingparadox.2015municipal elections channeled the desire for political change of an intenselymobilizedsociety. The government of some of the most important Spanish cities (Madrid, Barcelona,Valencia, Zaragoza,ACoruña, Cadiz…)went tohybrid candidacies composedof newpoliticalpartiessuchasPodemos,traditionalleftpartiesandpeoplefromsocialmovements.A complex formula that does not respond to conventional party structures, an anomaly inEurope, whereby people with strong anchors in local citizen movements and left or greenparties coordinate work together to govern the institutions. This movement is about much

8

more than bringing a progressive agenda to city hall, demands move forward with policiesabout deep local selfgoverment, participatory democracy, municipalized economics, socialjustice and ecology. Municipalism faces the challenge of managing high expectations andtranslatingmany of the socialmovements' demands into public policies,while fulfilling theirresponsibilitiestogovernforallcitizens.Theyhavethetaskofrecoveringthelocalgovernmentas an institution that guarantees rights for the social majorities and for the common good,facing all the institutional inertias and all thebureaucratic obstructions; challenging, throughfragileandunstablemajoritieswithtraditionalparties,alegalarchitecturedesignedtopreventchange.After twoyearsofexploring the institutional tools, a turnof thewheel canbe seen,albeitaslow one. Indeed, it takes a long time for large institutions to show a change of direction.Municipalism is deepening in participatory democracy, transparency and especially in thechangeofpublicpolicypriorities(fightagainstsocialinequalityandterritorialimbalances,focusonrightssuchasfood,housingorenergy).Transformationsinthebackgroundandintheform,becausemunicipalismisalsoopeningspaceforemerging issues,whichwereabsentfromthepoliticalagendas(public-socialcooperation,solidarityeconomy,care,sustainableconsumptionandpublic procurement...), activating innovativemechanisms such as coproduction of publicpolicies. The situationhas changed froma "political fiction" scenario,becausearrivingat thecurrent situation seemedanunattainable chimera, toanotheroneof "political friction", thatrequires to deal with contradictions inside and outside the institutions, and to assume thatdiversefrictionsaregoingtotakeplace.Frictionswithintheestablishedpowerswhentryingtoapply the committed programs of democratic regeneration and social transformation,whichwill involve taking bold and riskymeasures that must necessarily be socially supported andsustained. Frictions between institutions and social movements, due to strategic andprocedural questions, spaces and times. Frictions, finally, within the associative dynamics,relatedtodisagreementsabouthowtotakeastandoneverydayconflicts...Adelicatesituationthatrequiresenoughpoliticalintelligencetoknowhowtoaddressconflictswithoutfallingintoconfrontation.ThepoliticalscientistBenjaminBarberusedtoprovocativelyassertthatmayorsshouldgoverntheworld,awayofrecognizingtherelevanceoflocalgovernmentsasinstitutionsofproximity,attached to the urgency of solving "problems in capitals with governments in lowercase"(Subirats,2015)andasprivilegedspacesforpoliticalexperimentation.Municipalismofthe"citycouncils of change" is a walking paradox, discomforting to central government powers andbusinessinterests,butalsotolocalcounter-powers;whoareobligedtoleavethecomfortzone,abandonthelogicofresistanceandacceptachangeintheir identitythatwillenablethemtoplayaleadingroleinascenariowheresecuringnewrightsbecomesfeasible.Moreover, it is not absurd to affirm that local powers have the potential to becomecounterpowers within the institutional architecture, beyond their innovative policies, whenthey are articulated to curb harmful state policies or international agencies (related torefugees, right of migrants, climate change, historic memory...). In Spain, the centralgovernment anticipated to this possibility in 2013 promoting legislation aimed at reducingmunicipalautonomy.Theso-calledMontoroLawestablishesanunprecedentedcutofpowersto municipalities, limiting the services that can be provided by local corporations andoverseeingtheireconomies.Allbecausemunicipalismshowsotherwaysofgoverning,outlining

9

alternativeaccountsofrealityandsuccessfullyimplementingotherpoliticalagendas,withallitsconflictsandcontradictions.These"citiesofchange"areinasingularandparadoxicalpositionbetweenthepragmatismofthemomentandtheutopianimpulsetobringaboutchange.Theyare giving life to a space where it is possible to create more suitable ecosystems andenvironments for the experiments that are autonomously prefiguring another society. Theselocalgovernmentsfacilitate,support,andstrengthnewformsofsocialinstitutions.This limited experience demonstrates that the viability of the urban commons will bechallenged in their capacity to generate an expanded public notion, more in effectiveappropriationthaninclaiminganewpropertystatute.Theurbancommonsopenthedoortoanautonomousappropriationofthepublicatneighbourhoodscale,whichisacomprehensiblespace.Afriendlyscale,accordingtotheenvironmentalpsychologistA.Moles,whorelatedthespatial distancewith thevariablesof the cognitivedomain, thepossibilitiesof space control,the effort invested in this process and the presence of other people. The areawhere thesevariablesconverge,thatis,wheresignificantspatialandcognitivecontrolismaintained,wherethere is a high presence of other people and where the effort to intervene is still low,correspondstotheneighbourhoodscale(MolesandRohner1975).The neoliberal city is being developed by alliances between the market and traditionalinstitutions,whichunderthefigureofpublic-privatepartnershipshaveendowedthebusinesssector with a great influence when it comes to defining the city's transformation strategies(urbanplanning,privatizationofservices,delimitationof investmentareas,commercializationofpublicspace...), increasingbothsocial inequalitiesandterritorial imbalances,aswellastheenvironmentalunsustainabilityofthemodel.Reversing this dynamic involves weaving processes of public-community collaboration,intensive in citizen protagonism, capable of implementing a new urban agenda thatparticipativelyaddressestheneedsofdisadvantagedpeopleandneighbourhoods,reorientingeconomicmodels towards social justice and ecological transition (Casadevante andMartínez2017). A sequence that requires strengthening the existing urban commons (urban gardens,social centres, community pantries, neighbourhood management of cultural and sportsfacilities, consumer groups, spaces for shared parenting, housing cooperatives, renewableenergy,work...)andtestingthescalingupofthecommonslogictothemunicipalmanagementof strategic resources (water, energy, food, waste management, care and attention topeople...).Steps are being taken in that direction in some Spanish cities. The City Council ofMadrid isbeginning toexploreapublic-social cooperation framework, andadditionally is elaboratingaregulation for the assignment of public spaces and resources to non profit entities for theircommunitymanagement,suchasfoundations,associations,organizationsandneighbourhoodentities, or even social economy companies concerned about the general interest and thecommongood. Inaddition,a categoryofurbanuse related to thecommonhasbegun tobediscussed,which serves to recognize collective uses in regulations related to urban plans. InBarcelona, there is amore or less consolidated trajectory of assignment of public spaces tocitizen management through regulations such as the so-called "civic management". Thisextension of the assignment of spaces to groups rooted in the territory comes from anorganized neighbourhood demand, which on multiple occasions had pointed out how free

10

competitionprocessesfortheassignmentofmanagementofpubliclyownedfacilitiesprivilegedthe private sector. Currently this regulation is being revised, since it operates with a highdegreeofdiscretionanddoesnotguaranteethatdimensionssuchasproximity,socialbenefitorterritorialrootsoftheactorsthatmanagethefacilitieshadmoreweightthanconventionaleconomicindicators.5.Plantingtomatoesandharvestingsocialrelations:communitygardens.Post 15M, when neighbourhood assemblies in Spain started to work on their localenvironments, they often developed community garden projects. This has happened fromMadridandBarcelonatoBurgosorMálaga,wheretheverynameofthegardensreflectsthoseorigins: Horts Indignats in Barcelona, Huerta Dignidad in Málaga (in reference to the 2014MarchesforDignity).Communitygardensemergedasoneofmanyformsofprotestagainsttheupsetcausedbytheneoliberalglobalcityand itsurbanicidaldynamics (toomany institutionsand not enough government, exclusion and the dual labour market, the politics of fear,deterioratingpublicservices,unsustainabilityandsoforth).Urbangardenshavebecomemeanstodenouncespeculationanddemandanewcultureof the territory.Theyhavealsoenabledthe creation of social and economic alternatives linking a wide range of social actors andcollectives, from green activist groups to unemployed people’s assemblies, fromneighbourhoodassociationstopopularsolidaritynetworks.Thismovementrevealsandraisesquestionsthatgobeyondthegardensthemselves,callingonpeopletoparticipateandshareresponsibilityforourlifestylesandhowwemanageresourcesthatarelocatedbeyondthecitylimitsbutareessentialforthecity’ssubsistenceinacontextofsocialandecologicalcrisis,exemplifiedbyclimatecollapseandtheenergycrisis.Oneofthestrengthsthatgivethecommunitygardenstheirradicalnatureandtransformativecapacity is their goal of creating a community in the broad sense, sharing and collectivelymanaging resources (soil, seeds, water, tools), obtaining certain benefits (harvests, socialrecognition), and conforming a group of people who define their own rules and form oforganization.Theneighbourhoodisthatspherebetweentheproductiveandthereproductive,betweentheprivate,known,domesticspaceandthepublicspace,comprisingthelarger,moreabstractcitythatcannotbeencompassedinitstotality.Inthecommunitygardens,thesenseofbelongingtothe neighbourhood is defined culturally rather than geographically, seeking to involve andappealtoneighbourswhosedefinitionasagroupislikewiseflexible,asitreferstopeoplewhoworkcollectivelyintheneighbourhoodandnotsomuchtotheirplaceofresidence.Agroecology,self-managementandsocialtiesarethethreefeaturesthatdefinethecommunitygardensmeaningat the local level,wherepeoplegrow foodandharvest social relationships.Because they are in the public space, the community gardens are highly visible, attractiveexperiences,andveryactiveinmakingconnectionswithotherinitiatives(communitycentres,neighbourhoodassociations,consumergroups,cyclists’collectives,educationassociationsandschools,forinstance),whichmeansthattheyreweavethelocalsocialfabric.Astimegoesby,themeetingspaceandrelationshipswithotherpeoplebecomekeytothegroup’scohesionandcompetesinattractivenesswiththegardeningdimension,whichwasinitiallymorerelevant.

11

Aswell as the immediate activity, the community gardens prefigurewhat peoplewould liketheir city to look like in the future, expressing the need for neighbourhoods that are moreparticipatory together with the introduction of an eco-urbanism approach (sustainabletransport,proximity,renewableenergies,composting,closingcycles).Hortodiversity, that is to say, the diversity of urban gardens due to their different locations,promoter groups, and motivations behind them, defines their key characteristic whencompared to traditional green spaces (Table 2). Every garden reflects the community thatgrows it, and the place in which is located, and thus everyone is radically different fromanother.

Table2.Publicspacesandcommunitygardens'characteristics

Publicspace CommunitygardenUseslimitedtothoseplanned. Versatile. Enable emerging and non

planneduses.Privateorpublicmanagement.Restrictiveregulationsbasedoncivility.

Community management, co-responsibility.

Centrallybuiltspace. Self-constructed.Professional design (technicians,architects,urbanplanners…).

Self-reflective design, integrating multipletechnical and experience-basedknowledges.

Progressivelycommodified. Demonetarised.Space that causes aloofness andestrangement.

Appropriatedspace.

Citizenasuser. Citizen as designer, builder, gardener,manager,user...

Conceived in a homogeneous anddeterritorialized way (infrastructure,morphology,plants...)

Highly adapted to the plot characteristics(infrastructure,morphology,plants).

Mainlybuiltwithnewmaterials. Mainly built with re-used or recycledmaterials.

Source:FernándezCasadevanteandMorán(2015).6.FromMadridtotheground.Thecommunitygardenswereborninlocalcommunitiesthatorganizedtoregeneratedegradedurbanspacesonasmallscalebyoccupyingabandonedproperties,spacesbetweenbuildingsorunderusedgreenareas.Theseemptyspacesonceagainbecameinhabited,combiningamodestreconstructionof the site, emphasizing theusagevalueof theurban space,witha relationalrehabilitation that seeks to restore the quality of the space by intensifying social relations(organizingactivitiessuchasstreetparties,communitymealsorculturalinitiatives).The protest side of the gardens was there from the beginning, revealing how far urbandevelopmentpoliciesandexpertknowledgehavedivergedfromtheneedsandaspirationsofthecity’sinhabitants.Theactionofoccupyingthespacereflectstheabsenceofwaystoengageinafruitfuldialoguewithlocalinstitutions,andreclaimstherightofcommunitiesandcitizens

12

to take ownership of the public space and apply “collaborative planning and managementpracticestorecreateitandthinkaboutwhatitshouldlooklikeinthefuture”.6.1HistoryThecommunitygardensmovementbeganinSpainatthestartofthetwenty-firstcenturywithafewisolatedinitiativestakenforwardbyneighbourhoodassociationsandecologists,whoby2010hadsetupcoordinationnetworkssuchastheReddeHuertosUrbanosComunitariosdeMadrid(RED).Sincethe15-Mmovementin2011manyneighbourhoodassemblieshavebeensetting up gardens in different areas ofMadrid, definitively locating this issue in the publicsphereandputtingitonthepoliticalagenda.TheREDservestoraisetheprofileofalltheinitiatives,encouragetheexchangeofexperiences(visits,meeting), share resources (seed nursery, seed exchange, buyingmanure collectively),createmutual supportmechanisms and promote training events (learning days, courses), aswell as offering a resource space that can provide advice and support to people and groupsinterestedintakingforwardnewinitiatives.Right from the start, the instability inherent in the occupation of land and the scarcity ofresourcesledtheREDtoseekdialoguewiththeMadridCityCouncil,inordertoregularizethestatus of the gardens andpush for the launchof amunicipal programme thatwould enablethemtoformpartofthecity’sgreeninfrastructureonapermanentbasis.Between internal tensions and lengthy assembly meetings, sites being dismantled andoccupied, protests and photo exhibitions, support from universities and internationalrecognition (UN-HABITAT’s Good Practice Award for Urban Sustainability), the RED gainedlegitimacyasaninterlocutorinnegotiations.Following a lengthy hard bargaining with one of Spain’s most neoliberal municipalgovernments, the status of the first 17 community gardens was regularized in 2014. Thegardensarelocatedonsitescategorizedasgreenareas,andtherighttousethemisawardedinapublicbiddingprocess.Inthelistoftermsandconditionsabalancehasbeenstruckbetweenrespectfortheuniquenessofcitizeninitiativesandtheirautonomy,whileofferinglegalsecuritytotheCityCouncil,inaninnovativeprocedurethatcouldbereplicatedinothercities.This major victory was won after exploring the shifting sands of dialogue with the citygovernment, without dying in the attempt, proposing new forms of engaging with stateinstitutions from positions of conflict and not just confrontation, eventually progressingtowardsdialogueandevencooperation.Thisgiantstephasenabledthecommunityagricultureinitiatives in the capital to consolidate and in just a few years to increase to nearly 60regularizedprojectstoday.Thecommunitygardenmapistheoppositeofatouristmap,whichshowsonlythecitycentre,becausethelow-incomeneighbourhoodspredominate,especiallythoseontheoutskirtswheremostinitiativesareconcentrated.Inthecitycentre,whereurbandevelopmentisdenser, it ismuchmoredifficulttofindaphysicalspace.Evenso,thedecisivevariableisthethicksocialand

13

neighbourhood fabric that the gardens require,which ismore likely to be found in outlyingneighbourhoods.

Graph1.MapofcommunitygardensinMadridThe institutionalizationprocess is in theearly stagesand is graduallybecomingconsolidated,respecting theautonomyandnon-party-politicalnatureof the initiatives. Inaddition, sinceamunicipalist coalition took over the City Council in 2015 further steps have been taken,advancing the joint development of public policies aimed at recognizing andmaximizing thecreativity and collective intelligence in our cities, involving citizens and the social fabric indesigningandimplementingpoliciesthatconcernthem.Thishas ledtotheregularizationofmoregardens, includingthose locatedonnon-residentiallandonatemporarybasis,thebuildingoftheMunicipalUrbanGardeningSchool,consolidatingatrainingplantosupportcommunitygardensjointlymanagedbytheReddeHuertos,andthelaunchofapilotprojectforcommunityagro-composting.6.2.OrganizationThe community gardens are organized as an assembly, where proposals are made andimportant decisions are taken. They also operate with working groups that are set up tocoordinate specific tasks. Alongside these, are informal mechanisms based on thematicleadership–thepersonwhoknowsaboutthespecifictopicandcantaketheinitiativedecideshowtodoit–anddecision-makingbythosewhoaremostoftenpresentinthespace.

14

Theworkdrawson the knowledgeandexperienceof all themembers, creating a climateofknowledge-sharingandongoing,collectiveknowledge-productioninresponsetotheproblemsthatarise.Taskstendtobeorganizeddependingoneachperson’spreferencesandknowledge,althoughtherearemechanismstoensurethatpeopletaketurnstodothemostunpleasantones–suchassweepingorstirringthecompost.Theharvest–amotivationmoresymbolicthanmaterial–isdividedamongeveryonepresentandisseldomasourceofconflict.However,careistakentoensurethatitissharedoutfairly.Ononeoccasion,anoldermanbrokeaboneinhisfootwhileworkinginthegardenandwasunable to go back for some time, but his share of each harvest was set aside for him andsomeonewouldtakeittohishousesincehisworkhadhelpedtogrowthevegetables.Someinitiativescollectmodestcashcontributionsfrommembers,althoughpeoplewhocannotaffordtopayarenotexcludedfromjoiningtheproject.Othersraisefundsbymakingfoodorsellingmerchandise−badges, canvasbags, etc.− aswell asby collecting voluntary individualcontributions.Thepracticeofurbanecologicalagriculture isoftenthemain initialattraction.Later,workingandspendingtimewithotherpeoplemeansthatrelationshipstendtobecomemoreimportantthanthevegetable-growingtasksassuch.Gradually,anetworkofrelationships iswovenandencouragessolidarityandmutualsupport.Ofcourse,asinanysocialsetting,therearedisagreementsanddisputesoverhowtomanagethe spaceor do thework, or becauseofmisunderstandings.However, conflict is not usuallyseenassomethingtoavoid,butratheranissuetobeaddressed.ThisiswhysomegardensinMadridhavedevelopedtheirownregulationsfordealingwithconflict,andevenmakeuseofmediationprocessesthroughtheRED.6.3.FromislandsofgreentoanarchipelagoThedifferencebetweenagroupof islandsandanarchipelago istheexistenceofconnectionsbetweenthem.Thus,oncethegardenshadputdownrootsintheneighbourhoodsandbecomepartofthesocialecosystem,theyandtheREDfocusedonbuildingbridges,gainingmoreallies,linkingupwithothercampaignsandcoordinatingwithotheractorsonvariousscales.The advocacywork done by the community garden goes beyond their own neighbourhoodsand their influenceextends to thecityasawhole,where theyaremaking theirownspecificcontributiontochangingtheurbanmodel.These projects are involved in multiple mobilization networks both at the urban and thetranslocalscale,linkedtocitizenparticipation,foodsovereigntyandagroecology.In2015,theREDcoordinatedtheFirstNationalMeetingofUrbanCommunityGardens.Theultimateaimisto transcend their own neighbourhood and become involved in a wider movement byconnecting these islands toothers,eventuallyconsolidatingever-expandingarchipelagos thatbreaktheboundsofestablishedinstitutionalstructuresanddominantpractices.

15

7.SeedinganotherurbanfuturesMadrid’s communitygardenshavegained significant symbolicpowerasmetaphors for socialcreativity, for citizens’ capacity togiveabandoned spacesback theirusevalue, for caring fornatureinthecity,andforthebuildingofalternativesbyautonomouscitizens.As well as mobilizing alternative ideas and becoming a means of protest, the communitygardens have been a valid practical way to bring the organizational dynamics and criticaldiscoursesdevelopedbythe15-Mmovementtoneighbourhoodsandmunicipalities.Theyarealsofosteringconnectionsbetweenthevariouspre-existinggrouporneighbourhoodprocesses,thusdiversifyingtheirparticipantprofilethankstotheirconstructiveandinclusivenature.Locally, the community gardens bring together a range of feelings, demands and claims(environmental, neighbourhood, political, relational), while simultaneously stimulatingprocesses of neighbourhood self-management that place emphasis on direct participation,takingownershipofthespace,therebuildingofidentitiesandthesharedresponsibilityofthecommunityasawholeforthedifferentissuesthataffectthepeoplewholivethere.Theseexercisesinmicro-urbanismexpresspeople’sdisagreementwiththedominantmodelofthecityandthelifestylesitinduces.Communitygardensareanexpressionoftheemergenceofacooperativeurbanism,intensivein citizen leadership and more democratic ways of understanding the public sphere. Thegardens imply processes of urban rehabilitation, both in the form of small-scale materialchanges and, especially, in the form of relational rehabilitation, in how links are developedamongpeopleandbetweenpeopleandtheirsurroundings.Communitygardensactontheproductionandtransformationoftheurbanspacethroughtheirimpact on human relationships and lifestyles rather than via major works of physicalrefurbishment.Ahabitable counter-power is one that allowspeople to experience in thehere andnow themajorfeaturesofthefuturelifetowhichweaspire,aprocessofimmanenttransformationthatcannot be reduced to strategic calculations regarding the accumulation of forces andirreversiblerevolutions.TheanarchistPaulGoodmanusedtosay:“Supposeyouhadtherevolutionyouaretalkinganddreamingabout.Supposeyoursidehadwon,andyouhadthekindofsocietythatyouwanted.Howwouldyoulive,youpersonally,inthatsociety?Startlivingthatwaynow!”REFERENCIASBIBLIOGRÁFICASdeAngelis,M.2003.“Reflectionsonalternatives,commonsandcommunities.”TheCommoner6:1-14.

16

Aubry,C.etPouriasJ.2013.“L’agricultureurbainefaitdéjàpartiedumétabolismeurbain”Pp135-155.EnDéméter2013:économieetstratégiesagricoles.Paris:ClubDemeter.Barthel, S., Folke, C. and Colding, J. 2010. “Social-ecological memory in urban gardens –retaining thecapacity formanagementofecosystemservices.”GlobalEnvironmentalChange20(2):255–265.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.01.001Barthel,S.,Parker,J.,andErnstson,H.2015.“FoodandGreenSpaceinCities:AResilienceLensonGardensandUrbanEnvironmentalMovements.”UrbanStudies52:1321-1338.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098012472744Bonet, J.2009.“Cuandocómoparticipar importa.Análisisde los impactosde laparticipaciónciudadanaenlaspolíticasderegeneracióndelcentrohistóricodeBarcelona.”URBS.RevistadeEstudiosUrbanosyCienciasSocialesVol1,nº1:4-26.Borja,J.2003.Laciudadconquistada.Madrid:Alianza.Breuste,J.H.2010.“Allotmentgardensaspartofurbangreeninfrastructure:actualtrendsandperspectives in Central Europe.” Pp. 463-476 in Urban Biodiversity and Design. Oxford:Blackwell.Camps-Calvet, M., Langemeyer, J., Calvet-Mir, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E., March, H. 2015.“Sowingresilienceandresistanceintimesofcrisis:thecaseofurbangardeningmovementsinBarcelona.”PartecipazioneeConflitto8(2):417–442.Castro,M.yMartí-Costa,M.2016.“Comunesurbanos:de lagestióncolectivaalderechoa laciudad.”EUREvol.42,nº125:131-153.http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0250-71612016000100006Colding, J. and Barthel, S. 2013. “The Potential of 'UrbanGreen Commons' in the ResilienceBuildingofCities.”EcologicalEconomics86:156-166.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.10.016Eizenberg, E. 2011. “Actually existing commons: Three moments of space of communitygardensinNewYorkCity.”Antipode44(3):764-782.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2011.00892.xFernándezCasadevante,J.L.2015.“Unmundonuevoenelcorazóndelasciudades.Iniciativascomunitariasqueanticipannuevasformasdehabitarlourbano.”Papeles130:143-152.FernándezCasadevante,J.L.yMorán,N.2015.Raícesenelasfalto.Presente,pasadoyfuturodelaagriculturaurbana.Madrid:LibrosenAcción.Firth,C.,Maye,D.andPearsonD.2011.“Developing‘community’incommunitygardens.”LocalEnvironment16(6):555–568.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2011.586025

17

Ghose, R. and Pettygrove, M. 2014 “Urban Community Gardens as Spaces of Citizenship.”Antipode46(4):1092–1112.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/anti.12077Ioannou, B., Morán, N., Sondermann, M., Certomà, C. y Hardman, M. 2016. “GrassrootsGardeningMovements:TowardsCooperativeFormsOfGreenUrbanDevelopment?”Pp.62-91inUrbanAllotmentGardensinEurope.NewYork:Routledge.Karyotis,T.yKioupiolis,A.2015.“Self-managingthecommonsincontemporaryGreece.Fromagricultural cooperatives toanemerging solidarityeconomy.” InOurs tomasterand toown.Chicago:HaymarketBooks.Kingsley, J.Y. y Townsend, M. 2006. “‘Dig in’ to social capital: community gardens asmechanismsforgrowingurbansocialconnectedness.”UrbanPolicyandResearch24(4):525–537.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08111140601035200Lafuente,A.2010Loscuatroentornosdelprocomún.digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/2746/1/cuatro_entornos_procomun.pdfLangemeyer, J., Latkowska,M.J. andGómez-Baggethun, E.N. 2016. “Ecosystem services fromurbangardens.”Pp.115-141inUrbanAllotmentGardensinEurope.NewYork:Routledge.Linn,K.2009.BuildingCommonsandCommunity.Oakland:NewVillagePress.Mckay,G.2012.Radicalgardening.Londres:FrancesLincoln.Martínez,M.yGarcía,A.2015.“Ocuparlasplazas,liberarlosedificios.”ACME:AnInternationalE-Journal for Critical Geographies, vol. 14, nº 1. Consulta 25 de octubre de 2015.(http://ojs.unbc.ca/index.php/acme/article/view/1145/0)Morán, N. y Fernández Casadevante, J.L. 2014 “A desalambrar. Agricultura urbana, huertoscomunitariosyregulaciónurbanística.”HábitatySociedad7:31-52.Mougeot, L.J.A. 2005Agropolis. The social, political and environmental dimensions of urbanagriculture.London:Routledge.OLINWRIGHT,E2014.Construyendoutopíasreales.Akal,Madrid.Ostrom, E. 1990.Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for CollectiveAction.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

18

Polanyi, K. 2007. La gran transformación. Los orígenes políticos y económicos de nuestrotiempo.Ed.FondoCulturaEconómica.México.Partalidou,M.andAnthopoulou,T.2016.“UrbanAllotmentGardensDuringPrecariousTimes:FromMotivestoLivedExperiences.”SociologiaRuralis.Consulta15deseptiembrede2016http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/soru.12117Parker, P. and Johansson, M. 2011. “The uses and abuses of Elinor Ostrom’s concept ofcommons in urban theorizing.” In International Conference of the EuropeanUrban ResearchAssociation(EURA)2011.CitieswithoutLimits.Copenhagen.Peck,J.2012.“Austerityurbanism:Americancitiesunderextremeeconomy.”City16(6):626-655.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2012.734071Rosol,M.2010.“Publicparticipationinpost-Fordisturbangreenspacegovernance:Thecaseofcommunity gardens in Berlin.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34 (3):548–563.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00968.xSennet,R.2016.Juntos:Rituales,placeresypolíticadecooperación.EdAnagrama.Barcelona.Sevilla,A.2015.“Urbanismo,crisisyausteridad.”Ciudades18(1):31-48.Stavrides,S.2010.Towardsthecityofthresholds.Trento:Professionaldreamers.Stavrides, S. 2013. “Contested urban rhythms: From the industrial city to the post-industrialurbanarchipelago.”TheSociologialReview61(1):34-50.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12052Subirats, J. 2015. “Políticas urbanas e innovación social. Entre la coproducción y la nuevainstitucionalidad. Criterios de significatividad.” Pp 95-112 en Innovación social y políticasurbanasenespaña.Experienciassignificativasenlasgrandesciudades.Barcelona:Icaria.Tarrow, S. 2014. El poder en movimiento. Los movimientos sociales, la acción colectiva y lapolítica.Madrid:Alianza.Thompson,E.1995.Costumbresencomún.Ed.Alianza.Madrid.Viljoen,A.yBohn,K.2014.SecondNatureurbanagriculture.London:Routledge.Winne,M.2008.Closingthefoodgap:Resettingthetableinthelandofplenty.Boston:BeaconPress.Weber,M.1987.Laciudad.EdLaPiqueta.Madrid.

emes.net