Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Managing yardsand togetherness Living conditions and social robustness
through tenant involvement in open space management
PÅL CASTELL
Department of Architecture CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Göteborg, Sweden, 2010
Managing yards and togetherness – Living conditions and social robustness through tenant involvement in open space management
Pål Castell
ISBN 978-91-7385-399-6
© 2010 by Pål Castell
Doktorsavhandlingar vid Chalmers tekniska högskola Ny serie nr. 3080 ISSN 0346-718X
Department of Architecture CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
SE-412 96 Göteborg SwedenTelephone +46 (0) 31 772 1000
Printed by Chalmers Reproservice Göteborg, Sweden, 2010
i
Managing yards and togetherness– Living conditions and social robustness through tenant involvement in open space management
Pål Castell Department of Architecture Chalmers University of Technology
AbstractThe subject of this thesis is tenant involvement in open space management in the context of Swedish rental housing areas. When tenants become involved in the management of the shared open spaces in their housing area, it affects their relationships to the place, to each other, to the landlord and to the city in different ways. Previous studies indicate that many positive outcomes can be expected in the form of not only improvements to the physical environment but also social change and various ecological and economic benefits. In many cases, participative open space management has contributed to turning vicious circles of stigmatisation and marginalisation into positive spirals of neighbourhood regeneration. However, few studies raise critical questions and there has been very little focus on the possible conflicts between different user groups. Moreover, there is little knowledge about how widespread the phe-nomenon is and which forms it takes. The present study contributes to filling these knowledge gaps.
The methodological approach is qualitative and explorative, involving em-pirical as well as theoretical inquiries. The empirical inquiries include tele-phone interviews with housing managers and involved tenants to map, typolo-gise and compare management organisations and involvement processes. To more critically analyse the functions and outcomes of different types of in-volvement processes in situ, a case study has been performed in a suburban housing area, based on in-depth interviews, questionnaires and observations. The theoretical inquiries are guided by three thematic entrances elaborating on the issues of (a) social networking, trust and norms in local communities; (b) citizen participation in urban planning and design processes; and (c) the role of place in social organisation. It is concluded that although the studied participation processes bear a potential for improving the functionality of the yards, developing togetherness and enhancing a positive image of the area, attention must be paid to the risk for conflict and social exclusion. The interest in tenant involvement seems to grow, which is promising in many regards. However, it is important to also be aware of the challenges it poses and how these can be dealt with in the management organisation.
KEYWORDS: participation; resident involvement; housing management; open space management; collective action; urban neighbourhoods; social capital; social cohesion; social exclusion; territoriality
ii
List of publications The thesis is based on the work contained in the following papers, referred to by Roman numerals in the text:
I. Space for community: on the study of resident involvement in neighbourhood space management Castell, Pål. In The Sustainable City IV: Urban Regeneration and Sustain-ability, Mander, Brebbia and Tiezzi (eds.), WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, WIT Press, Southampton. 2006.
II. Involving tenants in open space management: experiences from Swedish rental housing areas Castell, Pål. In Urban Geography, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 236-258. 2010.
III. Open space management in residential areas: how it is organised and whyLindgren, Therese and Castell, Pål. In International Journal of Strategic Property Management, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 141-160. 2008.
IV. The ambiguity of togetherness: experiences from a participative open space management initiative in a residential area Castell, Pål. Submitted.
V. Collective gardening and deprived neighbourhoods: a literature review Castell, Pål. Submitted.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................... v
SAMMANFATTNING PÅ SVENSKA........................................................ vi
PART 1
1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................. 11.1. Entry .....................................................................................................................2
1.1.1. The Epistemology Tree.........................................................................................21.1.2. From roots to trunk ...............................................................................................51.1.3. The trunk – three entrances to the research project .........................................71.1.4. From trunk to foliage...........................................................................................12
1.2. The research project .........................................................................................121.2.1. Purpose and research objectives ........................................................................131.2.2. Relevance of the study ........................................................................................14
1.3. Structure of the dissertation ............................................................................151.4. Introduction to the papers ...............................................................................16
2 METHODS ........................................................................................ 192.1. General research approach..............................................................................19
2.1.1. Holistic and atomistic worldviews .....................................................................202.1.2. Overall methodological approach......................................................................212.1.3. Theoretical inquiries............................................................................................24
2.2. Methods used in the empirical inquiries ........................................................252.2.1. Literature review of previous case studies........................................................262.2.2. Overview surveys and typologisations ..............................................................292.2.3. In-depth case study ..............................................................................................31
2.3. A post-reflection on methodology..................................................................36
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................ 383.1. What is tenant involvement in open space management? ..........................38
3.1.1. Framing and naming of the study object...........................................................393.1.2. A retrospect ..........................................................................................................433.1.3. Where and how does it take place? ...................................................................48
3.2. Theoretical inquiries and conceptual frameworks .......................................533.2.1. Sustainable development: life quality and robustness ....................................543.2.2. The Community Quest, social capital and togetherness.................................553.2.3. Participation, local control and collective action.............................................593.2.4. Place, territoriality and appropriation...............................................................61
3.3. Outcomes of tenant involvement in open space management ...................633.3.1. How can outcomes be analysed? .......................................................................633.3.2. Potential benefits .................................................................................................653.3.3. Potential conflicts.................................................................................................75
3.4. Conditions for involvement and the role of management ..........................823.4.1. Factors influencing tenant involvement............................................................823.4.2. Which factors can be influenced and by whom? .............................................88
iv
4 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................. 904.1. Tenant involvement in open space management and sustainable
development ................................................................................................904.1.1. Sustainable development in context ................................................................. 904.1.2. Effects of involvement processes ...................................................................... 924.1.3. Strategies for supportive involvement processes ............................................ 96
4.2. Wider implications ..........................................................................................1004.2.1. Tenant managed yards as an urban land resource........................................ 1004.2.2. Involvement processes as citizen participation ............................................. 1014.2.3. Togetherness and the local community .......................................................... 1024.2.4. A final remark.................................................................................................... 103
REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 104
APPENDICES
A. Example of interview guide in the overview survey – housing company B. Example of interview guide in the overview survey – involved tenant C. Example of interview guide in the case study – non-involved tenant D. Table of interview persons in the case study E. Questionnaire to tenants in the case study F. Profiles of returned questionnaires in the case study G. Dates and clock times of observations in the case study H. Description of the case study area and the yards
PART 2
THEMATIC PAPERS
A. Sustainable development and social robustness B. The Community Quest C. Participation, local control and collective action D. Urban territoriality and the residential yard E. The Swedish suburb as myth and reality
PART 3
PAPERS
I. Space for community: on the study of resident involvement in neighbourhood space management
II. Involving tenants in open space management: experiences from Swedish rental housing areas
III. Open space management in residential areas: how it is organised and why IV. The ambiguity of togetherness: experiences from a participative open space
management initiative in a residential area V. Collective gardening and deprived neighbourhoods: a literature review
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many people who deserve my gratitude for helping me manage to compile this thesis. I will acknowledge some of you here, bearing in mind that a comprehensive list would have needed much more than this page.
First of all, if it had not been for my supervisor Björn Malbert’s confidence and support, I would never even have begun the work. We have shared many great moments during these years. Also, my co-supervisor Jenny Stenberg has been a fantastic source of support with her experience and conscientiousness.
Among my other colleagues at the Department of Architecture there are so many I would like to mention, but I will restrict myself to expressing my thankfulness for all the help I have gotten from Lena Falkheden and Jaan-Henrik Kain in finding literature and elaborating on theoretical concepts.
Many thanks go to my research partners Bengt Persson and Therese Lindgren at the Department of Landscape Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; Birgitta Ericson, Britt-Marie Johansson and Maria Nilsen at the Department of Sociology, Lund University; and Ulf Ramberg and Michael Hellström at the Council for Local Government Research and Education (KEFU) in Lund. I am also grateful to the Swedish Research Council Formas for their support of the inter-disciplinary research project Sustainable Management of Residential Yards.
I want to mention some other researchers as well, who have helped me in different ways during the process: Birgit Modh, Lars-Erik Lind and Sören Olsson, who have all generously shared their knowledge from previous studies of tenant management and neighbourhood togetherness; Susanne Urban and Mats Lieberg, for their careful readings and proficient opposition at my mid-term and final seminars, respectively; and Lars Jadelius for his valuable thoughts and interest in my work.
One large and heterogeneous group of people I owe special thanks to com-prises all the engaged tenants, project leaders and housing managers I have had the honour to meet in my fieldwork, and many of whom kindly offered their time for interviews.
Then there are the many who have helped and supported my work in more indirect ways. Combining my research with teaching has been very valuable to me, particularly through my meetings with many creative students and inspir-ing discussions around their projects. One particular source of inspiration has also been those students, course assistants and teachers who have temporarily shared my working space.
During the course of this work, my two children Nomi and Milo were born. My sincerest love and gratitude go to you and to my wife, Paula – not as much for having endeavoured to give me time to catch up on my work in the eve-nings and on weekends, as for holding me back from falling too deeply into reading and writing. Although it has prolonged the project duration, alternat-ing research with concrete home duties and child care has certainly contrib-uted to my mental and physical well-being. Finally, I also want to express my thanks to my parents and in-laws, who have been very helpful during these years.
vi
SAMMANFATTNING PÅSVENSKA
Denna sammanläggningsavhandling redovisar resultaten från ett doktorand-projekt som handlar om hyresgästmedverkan i utemiljöförvaltning. Avhand-lingen består av tre delar. Den första delen tar ett samlat grepp och förklarar relativt utförligt projektets bakgrund, syfte, metoder, resultat och slutsatser. Den andra delen består av fem kortare uppsatser (Thematic Paper A-E) som ger breddade och delvis fördjupade utvikningar inom olika ämnesområden. Själva doktorsexamen baseras främst på de fem artiklar (Paper I-V) som åter-finns i avhandlingens tredje del och som koncentrerar sig på olika delresultat.
Hyresgästmedverkan i utemiljöförvaltning (tenant involvement in open spa-ce management), så som begreppet används i denna avhandling, kan i stor ut-sträckning likställas med det som av bostadsföretag och hyresgästorganisatio-ner ofta kallas självförvaltning, d.v.s. att en grupp hyresgäster själva tar hand om skötsel och planering av sin bostadsgård. Detta har kommit att intressera mig som landskapsarkitekt och samhällsbyggnadsforskare av flera anledning-ar. Dels är bostadsgårdarna en i stadsplaneringen ofta förbisedd del av stadens grönstruktur som fyller många viktiga funktioner, i synnerhet för de boende i området. De utgör också en intressant typ av sociala rum, ofta med en halv-offentlig karaktär där informell social kontroll kan utövas av de boende gent-emot varandra och tillfälliga besökare. Vidare är hyresgästmedverkan i ute-miljöförvaltning en form av deltagandeprocesser som förändrar rollfördel-ningen mellan stadens invånare och formella samhällsaktörer, i detta fall framför allt bostadsföretagens förvaltningsorganisation. De engagerade boen-de tydliggör sin roll som medskapare snarare än bara nyttjare. Dessa delta-gandeprocesser är exempel på självorganisering som delvis kan ses i ljuset av den diskussion som förs om välfärdsstatens tillbakadragande, i synnerhet när det gäller stadens ekonomiska periferier. En ytterligare anledning till mitt ämnesval är att hyresgästmedverkan i utemiljöförvaltning är sociala processer som ofta uppmärksammas för dess förmåga att stärka lokalsamhället. När en grupp boende går samman för att förbättra utomhusmiljön påverkas även grannrelationerna och det sociala livet i området, och det kan delvis ses som en motkraft till den moderna stadens tendenser till ökad anonymitet, rotlöshet och främlingskap.
De beskrivna ingångarna till mitt intresse för forskningsämnet mynnar i av-handlingen ut i tre teoretiska teman: lokalsamhälle, deltagande och plats. Dessa teman bildar en länk mellan den övergripande frågeställningen om hur vi kan skapa en hållbar utveckling och det konkreta studieobjektet som är hyresgästmedverkan i utemiljöförvaltning (se figur 8 på sidan 14). Det teore-tiska ramverk som därigenom byggts upp utgår från att den globala visionen om hållbar utveckling förstås i termer av ett utvecklingsmål om rättvis och ökad livskvalitet samt ett hållbarhetsvillkor om robusthet. Omsatt i den lokala kontexten av boendes medverkan i förvaltningen av bostadsgårdar i socio-ekonomiskt utsatta förortsområden, har jag tolkat frågan om hållbar utveck-ling som en utmaning att skapa förbättrade livsvillkor och social robusthet.
vii
För att utforska ämnet har jag genomfört en internationell litteraturstudie, två kartläggningsstudier i Göteborg, samt en fördjupande fallstudie i Angered. Den internationella litteraturstudien bygger på 63 dokument som rapporterar om tidigare studier av hyresgästmedverkan i utemiljöförvaltning eller andra motsvarande former av kollektivt medborgardeltagande i att förbättra livsmil-jöerna genom trädgårdsarbete (ofta under den engelska benämningen com-munity gardening). Studien visar att dessa deltagandeprocesser rymmer en mycket hög potential att förbättra såväl livsvillkor som att bidra till robusthet, utifrån en lång rad aspekter. Särskilt intresse har ägnats åt att studera effek-terna i marginaliserade bostadsområden och det konstateras att kollektivt deltagande i utemiljöförvaltning kan spela en mycket viktig roll i att skapa positiva utvecklingsspiraler i sådana områden. Men undersökningen visar även att tidigare studier väldigt sällan har haft ett kritiskt förhållningssätt och att i synnerhet frågor om uteslutning och obalans mellan olika gruppers infly-tande i deltagandeprocesserna skulle behöva lyftas fram bättre. Resultaten presenteras bl.a. i Paper V.
De två kartläggningsstudierna i Göteborg, som delvis överlappar varandra, har gått ut på att få en heltäckande bild av hur situationen ser ut i ett begrän-sat geografiskt område. Den huvudsakliga metoden har varit telefonintervju-er, kompletterat med studier av bl.a. sattelitfoton och befolkningsstatistik. I den första delstudien kartlades bostadsföretag; 32 företag med 200 lägenheter eller mer kontaktades och intervjuer genomfördes med sammanlagt 56 an-ställda (direktörer, förvaltningschefer, husvärdar och motsvarande). Som framhålls i Paper III kan man urskönja två olika generella förhållningssätt till förvaltning inom företagen: ett som lägger tyngdpunkten på kostnadseffektivi-tet och tekniskt utförande och ett som fokuserar på sociala relationer. Delvis kan beslut om att inrätta husvärdssystem, sköta förvaltningen i egen regi samt att stödja boendemedverkan kopplas till ett högre intresse för sociala rela-tionsfrågor.
Den andra kartläggningen, som redovisas framför allt i Paper I och II, handlar om att identifiera och analysera medverkanprocesser. Det konstateras att det finns en stor mängd informella processer, ofta bestående av enskilda hyresgästers engagemang att anlägga och sköta en liten rabatt utanför sin in-gång. Kartläggningen har istället koncentrerats på de formella processerna, d.v.s. där någon form av skriftlig överenskommelse gjorts mellan hyresgäster-na och bostadsföretaget om en ändrad ansvarsfördelning kring utemiljöför-valtningen. Förutom bostadsföretagens representanter intervjuades även 21 hyresgäster som var aktiva i sådana grupper, samt 3 projektledare för självför-valtningsprojekt. Undersökningen har mynnat ut i en modell för att kategori-sera olika typer av boendemedverkan. Vidare har arbetsformer och olika för-utsättningar analyserats. En slutsats är att självförvaltning är en relativt mar-ginell företeelse även om intresset för det av allt att döma ökar. Det är också värt att notera att formell boendemedverkan förekommer med stor spridning över staden och i vitt skilda typer av bostadsområden, dock i samtliga fall med allmännyttans kommunala bostadsföretag som hyresvärd.
Den fördjupande fallstudien omfattade fyra gårdar i bostadsområdet Ange-red Centrum. Urvalsprincipen var att hitta ett område där olika former av boendemedverkan på gårdar med liknande rumsliga och lägesmässiga förut-sättningar kunde jämföras. Data samlades in framför allt genom djupintervju-
viii
er med boende aktiva i gårdsförvaltningen, icke-aktiva boende och förvalt-ningspersonal; observationer av gårdarnas utseende och användning; samt enkäter till samtliga boende på gårdarna (för detaljer, se sektion 2.2.3 samt bilagor). Fallstudien pekade på tydliga kopplingar mellan boendemedverkan och användning av gårdarna. Påverkan på gårdarnas utseende var också tydlig även om den kanske inte var lika iögonfallande som man kunde förvänta sig. Likaså framstod betydelsen av boendemedverkan för områdets identitet mindre än den bild som ofta framtonar i tidigare fallstudier. Ett viktigt fokus för fallstudien blev att undersöka medverkansprocessernas betydelse för grannskapsgemenskap och eventuella samband med konflikter och uteslut-ningsmekanismer. I Paper IV utvecklas således begreppet grannskapsgemen-skap (neighbourhood togetherness) som framställs som dubbelsidigt: å ena sidan kan det skapa trivsel och trygghet, men å andra sidan finns det risk att gemenskapen stänger ute vissa grupper, kanaliserar underliggande konflikter och bidrar till förtryckande social kontroll.
I slutsatserna av studierna diskuteras bland annat vilken roll förvaltnings-organisationen och husvärden (eller motsvarande lokalområdespersonal) kan spela i att stödja demokratiska och inkluderande medverkansprocesser. Dels kan det handla om att hitta en balans mellan formella och informella organisa-tionsformer, vilket bör avvägas mot hur mycket ansvar och egenkontroll de boende har. Dels kan det handla om att se betydelsen av såväl överbryggande (bridging) som sammanbindande (bonding) sociala nätverk och stödja olika typer av aktiviteter beroende på den aktuella situationen. Dels handlar det om att också vara uppmärksam på gruppens organisationskultur (group style) och försöka trycka på vikten av tolerans, öppenhet och reflexivitet.
Det sista avsnittet (4.2) i avhandlingens första del ägnas åt några fundering-ar kring resultatens vidare betydelse. Med utgångspunkt i de tre ingångarna föreslås att hyresgästmedverkan i utemiljöförvaltning delvis kan ses som ett uttryck för en vision om en förändrad samhällsordning, med en önskan om att stärka den enskilda människans band till sina medmänniskor, till samhällsin-stitutionerna och till platsen där hon bor. Detta synliggörs ibland i närmast utopiska tankar om självförvaltning, självorganisering och kollektivt handlan-de som lösningar på samhällets demokratiska, kulturella, ekonomiska och ekologiska kriser. Med en mer pragmatisk hållning kan man dock se att det även finns problem förknippade med såväl platsförankrings- som deltagande- och lokalsamhällesperspektivet. Det finns intressemotsättningar inte bara mellan olika grupper och aktörer i lokalsamhället, utan också mellan olika lokalsamhällen och mellan olika nivåer i samhället. De stora strukturella ut-vecklings- och hållbarhetsproblemen kan inte lösas enbart genom engage-mang på en grannskapsnivå, även om många missförhållanden manifesteras just där, i människors vardagsliv.
PART
INTRODUCTION · 1
INTRODUCTION
Tenant involvement in open space management exists to some extent in every Swedish rental housing area. When walking around in cities and small towns, you can find small signs here and there; traces of residents’ engagement in making their neighbourhood a bit nicer, a bit more colourful, a bit more per-sonal. Even an untrained eye can often notice the difference between the ex-tensively maintained, coherently designed spaces managed by housing com-panies or professional contractors and the small-scale, intricate, sometimes eccentric elements added by residents such as a motley bed of perennials in a gap in the hedge, a rainbow-coloured stone at the entrance, a group of sun-flowers at the edge of the wood, or a garden gnome hiding in a lilac bower. Besides the possible inspiration evoked by such expressions of citizens’ wishes to make ‘creative imprints’ (see Stehn, 2008) in their everyday life environ-ment, the phenomenon of tenant involvement in open space management can also be viewed in the light of different contemporary urban planning and management challenges, such as: stigmatisation of suburban rental housing areas, social tensions between population groups, alienation from society, deficits in the public open spaces, and a perceived disconnection from nature.
This dissertation presents the findings from a research project exploring the phenomenon of tenant involvement in open space management and how it may or may not contribute to sustainable development in Swedish rental housing areas. It is a theoretical as well as an empirical exploration moving between abstract general models and concrete local situations, and across dis-ciplinary borders. It is also an exploration of the epistemological bases for such a research task.
The main part of this introductory chapter, Section 1.1, describes my per-sonal way into this project which also introduces the theoretical points of de-parture. Section 1.2 introduces the project itself as well as its relevance and objectives in more concrete terms. Section 1.3 briefly presents the structure of the dissertation, and Section 1.4 introduces the five papers included in part three.
2
1.1. EntryAs the choice of research topic, and the framing of it, has been a constant is-sue of quandary throughout the project, I will begin this introductory chapter by describing my own way into it in a rather personal way. To facilitate this exercise of self-reflection, I will make use of a metaphor I call the Epistemol-ogy Tree, inspired by John Holmberg’s Question Tree.
Figure 1. The Question Tree, in a slightly simplified reinterpretation of the original illustration as it appears in Holmberg, 1998 (Figure 4). It describes a systemic understanding of how human activities impact the ecosphere.
1.1.1. The Epistemology Tree
Professor in physical resource theory John Holmberg sometimes illustrates his epistemological approach with a tree, which he calls the Question Tree. The trunk represents the basic core of knowledge, which spreads out in branches of subordinate knowledge fields, becoming more numerous and narrow the further out from the trunk they stretch. At the fringe are all the leaves, which represent the detailed facts we can measure and touch. He claims that we far too often focus on the leaves instead of the trunk when we discuss things. Holmberg explains the idea behind the Question Tree as a means to facilitate the understanding of a complex system of interrelating causes and effects (Holmberg, 1998, p. 41):
A tree is used as a metaphor to illustrate what is meant by ‘simplicity without reduction’ (Broman et al. 1998). Simplicity without reduction is applied when you want to understand and explain systems in the simplest way. This
INTRODUCTION · 3
requires understanding the overall principle of a system, so that ‘upstream causes’ of a problem can be properly understood and addressed. Measures to deal with ‘detailed downstream problems’ then flow more logically from this upstream analysis. This approach makes it simpler to deal with complexity, yet doesn’t ‘simplify’ in the sense of disregarding any of the complexity.
In the figure, the trunk and branches illustrate the upstream principles that describe fundamental mechanisms in society’s impact on nature and the foli-age represents all the complex activities and potential effects downstream.
Holmberg then gives several reasons for why one should begin at the trunk when analysing a complex problem: (1) It is easier to think upstream in cause-effect chains if you know the overall principles, (2) Complexity is reduced as much as possible without losing comprehension of the whole system, (3) Pro-fessional people possess detailed knowledge within their own fields, but often lack the sort of overview necessary for an understanding of the whole system within which they are active, (4) Through encouraging professionals to trans-late information on overall principles into concrete measures, one creates en-gagement and mutual respect instead of opposition.
Independent of my own inspiration of the Question Tree, my former col-league Lena Simes used it to structure her understanding of a design process, in which the programming defines the essential preconditions whereafter the sketching and detailing can begin; see Figure 2. While Holmberg emphasises the cause and effect direction from a physical resource theory perspective, Simes’ reinterpretation adds the important point that the introduction of hu-mans into the process distorts the time-spatial relationships between different parts. Simes argues that even though the design process can be described as a chain
Figure 2. Simes’ design process tree (as illus-trated in Edén et al., 2003).
4
of sub-processes following on each other in line with the tree model, the sub-processes in reality normally go on in parallel. Hence, it is a matter of climbing around in the tree, performing advanced acrobatic exercises mastered only by the skilled designer.
The first time I saw Holmberg’s presentation of The Question Tree I liked the metaphor. In a tree, the carrying structure is often hidden behind the mass of leaves, which well illustrates our tendency to look at the details without seeing how they are interconnected in more fundamental structures. However, I have always felt that one natural part was missing from Holmberg’s tree; he never pointed out that as much as half of a tree may be hidden underground, where the root system both constitutes the foundation of the trunk and also stands for the supply of water and nutrients, which is essential for keeping the tree alive.
I realise that my use of the Question Tree implies a reinterpretation of and, perhaps, also a development of Holmberg’s original metaphor as well as of Simes’ version of it. I will therefore call it the Epistemology Tree, emphasising its potential for describing how knowledge is created in the meeting between conceptualisations based on previous experiences and reflection upon new empirical experiences. In my understanding, the root system, from the small root tips towards the trunk base of the Epistemology Tree, would represent how particular experiences in a person’s life or in a community of any size unconsciously form conceptual threads, which grow together to thicker belief structures eventually moving up the worldview trunk. Thus, the metaphor suggests that knowledge is a two-way process, built through connecting em-pirical facts to hypotheses and theories with the help of intellectual exercises (from leaves to trunk), but also more intuitively and hidden with the help of intellectual insight through the building of values based on different experi-ences (from root tips to trunk); see Figure 3.
Holmberg’s Question Tree is clearly addressed from a natural scientist’s point of view, suggesting a linear flow from upstream causes to downstream effects. It can be compared to the PSR and DPSIR frameworks1, developed to structure environmental indicators in linear or cyclic chains of causes, effects and society’s responses. However, the reliance on uni-directional causality has been criticised. For example, Niemeijer and de Groot (2008) argue that there is rather a complex web of interrelated causes and effects constituting an envi-ronmental problem issue. The complexity of interrelations and multi-directional causalities is even more apparent when social science perspectives are involved, which can be illustrated by Malbert’s (1998, p. 20, see Figure 1) reflections on the web of agents constituting the institutional systems for wa-ter and waste treatment in Göteborg.
Simes’ re-interpretation of the Question Tree can be seen as a response to the described limitations of uni-directional approaches. To take the organic process dimension one step further, the Epistemology Tree is equipped with the peculiar feature (compared to other kinds of trees we normally encounter) of not being at all bound to the three spatial dimensions we use for our orien-tation in the real world. When climbing on one branch on one side of the Epis-
1 PSR stands for pressure–state–response and DPSIR stands for driving force–pressure–state–impact–response. These frameworks were developed by the OECD and European Environment Agency (see, e.g., Smeets & Weterings, 1999; Hens & De Wit, 2003)
INTRODUCTION · 5
temology Tree, it often happens that we suddenly find ourselves on a different branch on the other side of it. And when we go back, it is likely that things are re-arranged again. This is because the structure of branches we climb in is a construction of our own thought that we frequently reconstruct, consciously and unconsciously.
Figure 3. An attempt to visualise the idea of the Epistemology Tree. The leaves and root tips represent our interface with the empirical domain, while the trunk represents our worldview. The links between them are our ways of perceiving and conceiving reality.
Just like in the organic reality, though, every individual leaf of the Episte-mology Tree carries a basic structure that is common to all leaves, and every cell carries the same genetic codes as the rest. Thus, the wholeness is somehow represented as an underlying structure in each particular item or event. This symbolises the fact that society as a whole is represented in each particular situation. For example, looking at a residential yard and the social interactions taking place there, society is represented in the way the yard is designed and managed, in the way people think and talk, in lifestyles, norms, beliefs, etc. Society can only be explained through describing concrete social situations, and a social situation can only be explained through describing the society it takes place in.
1.1.2. From roots to trunk
At an early age, I cultivated a deep interest for nature. Much of my leisure time was spent together with my brother catching small fish in muddy bays,
CONSCIOUS
UNCONSCIOUS
6
climbing trees or searching for insects under mossy stones. Nature was a resort as much as an adventure and a source of inspiration, regardless of whether it consisted of a tormented shrubbery in the nursery school yard, a weedy buffer zone along the tram rail, a disused quarry, or a shell beach in the archipelago. When I was nine and came into contact with the youth environmental associa-tion Fältbiologerna, the weekend bird-watching excursions and hiking camps opened new dimensions of my nature lover identity. Attaining knowledge about animals and plants may have initially been a trigger to get up before dawn, hungry and freezing, to watch the migrating bird flocks. However, my main motivation was probably to develop a strengthening feeling of inde-pendence, freedom and self-determination, and, something that became more and more important, the establishment of social bonds to other persons nur-turing this nature nerdiness.
Another issue also emerged, largely as a result of my involvement in the youth environmental club, namely the awareness of environmental degrada-tion and corresponding political activism. One of many important moments was a visit to the dead forests of Kowarski Grzbiet in Poland. The suggestive image of dark, thorny branches desperately stretching towards the cloudy sky from twisted, barkless, silver trunks rising from the brown grass as ominous as the stones of a desolate graveyard, naturally made an impression. For some reason, though, my fluctuating belief in the possibility to save the Earth from destruction never fell into despair, which is probably due more to a certain mind-escaping and envisioning ability than to a sincere faith in evolution. At any rate, it should be noted that my initial concern for environmental prob-lems and more or less technical and legal solutions to them successively shifted towards an interest in the functioning of society as well as social and cultural challenges.
The late 1980s and early 1990s were an important period in this regard. The notion of sustainable development was developed as the world community of political leaders negotiated to construct an integrative framework for dealing with the emerging environmental and social problems within a system of growth-oriented global capitalism economy (see Thematic paper A). Mean-while, I was active in starting new environmental associations at places where I studied or worked. I realised that one of the most significant learning out-comes from my long-term engagement in Fältbiologerna along with a number of political and cultural associations was organisational training – learning practical skills such as bookkeeping, writing of protocols, administration of projects, and marketing strategies as well as the important but elusive issues relating to social dynamics of team-working and communication. More and more, I came to the conclusion that the main challenge of and the main key to sustainable development was not more knowledge about ecosystems, or nec-essary technical innovations, and not even the constraints of the economic or political systems, but the lack of organisational capacity and integration of grassroots into the development processes.
Quite accidentally, I happened to apply to the landscape architect educa-tional programme, as I found its combination of natural science, social science and arts tempting. Working with planning and development processes was my highest interest and I was happy when I later had the chance to become a pro-ject assistant in the research group of Built Environment and Sustainable De-
INTRODUCTION · 7
velopment at the Department of Architecture, Chalmers University of Tech-nology.
1.1.3. The trunk – three entrances to the research project
After a couple years of teaching and research at Chalmers, when I was to for-mulate my PhD project I derived my inspiration from three different, al-though interrelated, research platforms of the group I worked in: (1) research about “the unused resource” of urban green space (represented by Lundgren Alm, 2001); (2) research about citizen participation in planning processes and the concepts of interspace and interplace (represented by Malbert, 1998; Stenberg, 2004); and (3) research about “the local area as a strategy for sus-tainable development” (represented by Falkheden, 1999). These three plat-forms can be seen as three ‘entrances’ to the research project presented in this dissertation, and are introduced below.
Urban green space – “the unused resource”
When I came to Chalmers, I jumped directly into an ongoing research project called ‘Sustainable Urban Development and Urban Structures’. Together with Elisabet Lundgren Alm, Björn Malbert, Pernilla Korhonen and Jonas Torn-berg, I studied municipal planning of urban green structures. Planning docu-ments from the region were collected and analysed, and pointed at a great uncertainty among local authorities about how to define and develop urban green structures (Lundgren Alm et al., 2004). The project was also connected to the European research collaboration Communicating Urban Growth and Green, involving researchers and practitioners from fifteen countries (Lundgren Alm, Malbert & Korhonen, 2002; Werquin et al., 2005). Lundgren Alm’s work at the department goes back to the mid-1990s when she began studying how urban green spaces were viewed in planning. Historically, she argues, the way green spaces have been handled in urban planning and design has oscillated between object and system orientation. However, she traces a continuous tendency throughout the 20th century of a steadily more sectorised urban planning organisation when it comes to how green spaces are viewed. Throughout Lundgren Alm’s publications, this sectorisation is described as a key obstacle to an integrative planning approach.
Lundgren Alm is especially critical of how the adaptation of the green structure notion and the focus on biological diversity emerging in the 1990s contributed to making green structure planning a separate and expert-led sec-tor in urban planning and design. “The concept of green structure is clearly characterised by the way problems have been handled in society during the 20th century – by isolating them from each other and try to manage them sec-tor by sector” (Lundgren Alm, 1996, p. 60).
An image illustrating the title of Lundgren Alm’s dissertation – The unused resource of the urban landscape (2001) – is the comparison of formal and fac-tual green structures, i.e. the discrepancy between what the planning authori-ties recognise as green spaces in the city, and existing areas which could actu-ally be regarded as green structures according to the definition “all land and water surface which is not built or paved” (Lundgren Alm, 2001, p. 55). An inquiry in Göteborg showed that about half of all non-built and non-paved
8
spaces were not encompassed by the green structure layers of the city coun-cil’s GIS systems (see Figure 4). These informal green spaces consist of, for example, private gardens, buffer zones along roads and derelict previous in-dustrial grounds (so-called brownfields).
Figure 4. Formal (left map) and factual (right map) green structures marked in grey in a representative sector of the city of Göteborg (Lundgren Alm, 2001; 2003).
A large part of the informal urban green spaces also consists of the generous amounts of open spaces in the multifamily housing areas from the 1960s and 1970s, which form several large white patches on the left map in Figure 4. Es-timatively, the rental housing estates cover about as much green space in Sweden as the accumulated amount of constructed parks managed by the mu-nicipalities2. It should also be acknowledged that the open spaces of modern mass-housing developments not only amount to large areas, but have also commonly been accused of being ill-functioning and sometimes even devastat-ive to the communities they are supposed to serve (see more on this in The-matic paper E). The large-scale housing developments of the 1960s and 1970s have been particularly criticised for their outdoor environments, which moti-vates their current subjection to densification and infill projects as the larger cities strive to reduce their housing backlog. While the urban green space planning debates almost without exception deal with public parks and nature included in the formal green structure, the substantial amounts of semi-public open spaces in housing estates are largely ignored.
2 As presented in Paper III, this estimation can be related to figures published in Bucht and Persson (1987) and Svenska Kommunförbundet (1997).
INTRODUCTION · 9
Participative governance in interspace and interplace
As an urban design consultant during the 1970s and 1980s, Björn Malbert was frustrated at the general lack of scientifically informed reflectivity among planners, and how they normally distanced themselves from the reality of the citizens they were planning for. To challenge his frustration, Malbert left his role as planner for a researcher career. His commitment was to seek new planning approaches in accordance with the vision of a sustainable develop-ment as formulated in Our Common Future (WCED, 1987) and Agenda 21(UNCED, 1992). Patsy Healey’s ideas about a communicative turn in plan-ning philosophy and practice became a main source of influence. The two gaps introduced above – between practitioners and researchers on the one hand and between experts and citizens on the other – formed the basis of a model structuring Malbert’s theoretical framework; see Figure 5. The model shows how there is a hypothetical field of uncertainty, referred to as the interspace,around the borderlands between theory and practice, and between the system and the lifeworld. These two borderlands correspond to the two identified gaps (system–lifeworld are Jürgen Habermas’ conceptualisation of the expert–citizen gap). Moreover, Malbert’s model suggests that it is in this interspace where the planning process can transform knowledge into action. He empha-sises the need not only to reform the planning practice towards higher levels of intersectoral integration but also for research to develop transdisciplinarity, which means integrating different disciplines as well as practice. He further stresses the necessity to develop new roles for planners in a communicative planning system, where the roles of expert and coordinator must be supple-mented with process facilitators, working very closely with the local communi-ties and their citizens.
Figure 5. Malbert’s interspace model (redrawn from Figure 4 in Malbert, 1998, p. 40; arrow and “the interspace” are added to the original figure to make it clearer).
Jenny Stenberg has continued Malbert’s research tradition in her close ex-amination of a series of revitalisation and development initiatives in large-scale suburban housing areas. Stenberg’s focus has been to look critically at the interaction between the local community and representatives of local au-
different disciplines
different sectors
THEORY PRACTICE
Public planningSYSTEMS
Communities of the LIFEWORLD
individuals and groups with different frames, knowledge, values, interests
KNOWLEDGE ACTION
guided by instrumentalrationality
guided by communicativerationality
THEINTERSPACE
10
thorities working with project implementation. As a development of Malbert’s interspace concept, Stenberg incorporates a more individual and socially ori-ented perspective in her conceptualisation of the ‘interplace’3.
For Stenberg (2004), the involvement of citizens and especially typically ex-cluded groups (e.g., youth, women, immigrants) in urban planning, design and implementation processes is an essential prerequisite for a sustainable devel-opment. She urges the development and adaptation of techniques and models for handling such participative processes, which comes down to reflecting on the interplay between individual micro- and macro-actors in the local arenas, corresponding to the title of her dissertation: Planning in interspace.
“The local area as a strategy for sustainable development”
Another theme in the research carried out by associates of the Built Environ-ment and Sustainable Development group is represented in Lena Falkheden’s dissertation Lokalområdet som strategi för en hållbar stadsutveckling (The local area as a strategy for sustainable urban development). One important point of departure is Falkheden’s interest in the opportunities for a paradig-matic shift in the way we live and think, inherent in the deep crisis created by modernity. Critical but hopeful social theorists like Anthony Giddens, Ulrich Beck, Thomas Ziehe and Eric Fromm are main sources of inspiration in her analyses of environmental initiatives in three Danish urban neighbourhoods. One central concern is thus how the individual relates to society.
Falkheden’s main interest, though, lies in the connection between physical design, social interaction and learning when it comes to shaping the conditions for a just and environmental-friendly lifestyle. She concludes that local area initiatives alone are not sufficient for achieving a sustainable development. However, she sees a great potential in using the local area as an arena for change, and sees it as essential to incorporate the local perspective to success-fully deal with sustainability problems. Of significance for succeeding with local area initiatives is the need to create links between the local and the global. Such links, constituted by, e.g., symbolic artefacts, meeting places or learning programmes, can and should aim to trigger our aesthetic sense and our intellectual reason (Falkheden, 1999, p. 225).
Falkheden chooses to use the term local area [lokalområde] “as an alterna-tive to the more limited notion of housing area [bostadsområde] as well as to the more value-loaded notion of neighbourhood [grannskap]” (Falkheden, 1999, p. 77). Although the Swedish word grannskap corresponds directly to the English neighbourhood, it has also been used to emphasise the communitydimension of urban neighbourhoods – i.e., the social interplay. Falkheden claims that the original content of the Swedish neighbourhood notion refers to “a multi-functional urban district or local community with a strong local iden-tity and locally based social networks” (Falkheden, 1999, p. 78). However, as she discusses, the urban social reality today is not a cluster of identifiable and socially coherent neighbourhood units, but instead a complex of interlacing geographical identities and a web of widespread individual networks. Never-theless, the local social interaction and the identity of the local area remain important factors in developing the necessary links between the local and the
3 The concept of interplace is further elaborated in Thematic paper C.
INTRODUCTION · 11
global, which is Falkheden’s main point. The local area functions as a physical arena for individuals’ everyday life and social interaction. It plays an impor-tant role not only in linking individuals to a community and society context, but also in linking the personal and local to the impersonal and global.
The trunk
The three thematic entrances described above as research platforms in my research group intertwine in what can be understood as the trunk of the Epis-temology Tree of my PhD project. Together, they can be connected to each other in a schematic model of key relations in society (see Figure 6). Falkhe-den’s local area perspective, anchored in a critical analysis of the social conse-quences of modernity, fit well into my own growing interest in the foundation of the societal body – how people live side by side and interact in daily life. It opened a door to classical community theory and social capital theory (the latter also informed by Jaan-Henrik Kain, 2003), which became an important part of my theoretical framework. These theories represent a concern for the horizontal social relations between citizens in a local area context (A in the figure). Vertical relations, i.e. between individual citizens and organisations or institutions in society, are also important concerns in Falkheden’s dissertation. However, these relations are more explicit in Malbert’s, Kain’s and notably Stenberg’s search for better ways to involve citizens in urban planning proc-esses (B in the figure). These writings constitute a platform for urban planning and participation theories used in the present dissertation. Lundgren Alm’s as well as my own previous work on the planning of urban green spaces partly elaborate on the relations between citizens and planning authorities, but also involve the important relationship between humans and the physical envi-ronment (C in the figure).
Figure 6. Schematic model of three themes representing key relations in so-ciety in connection to the described research platforms. A: Social relations within the local community B: Citizen participation in urban design and planning processes C: The role of urban open green spaces
12
1.1.4. From trunk to foliage
From the very broad background described above, I searched for concrete applications in a new research project. In Lundgren Alm et al. (2004, pp. 72-75), two strategic planning levels were pointed out as missing in the current Swedish planning system: the regional level and the local area/neighbourhood level. I particularly saw the neighbourhood as a key level in developing inte-grative and participative planning instruments. An initial question was how citizens can be motivated to get involved in the urban planning processes by transferring power to the local level. One interesting type of initiative in this direction is found in cases of self-management, or more accurately: tenant in-volvement in open space management. As a subject for my research, these processes seemed to combine my different interests: They deal with the use, management and development of urban green spaces; they provide a hypo-thetical link between the individual and ‘society’, seemingly offering a promis-ing interplace between local inhabitants and housing companies; and vitalising local social communities is apparently a key issue in connection to these proc-esses.
Tenant involvement in open space management, which will be described in more detail in Section 3.1, is a rather multiform phenomenon. It occurs in al-most all rental housing areas, but it has not been investigated much. I had no-ticed in my own housing area that there were several places where tenants contributed to improving the shared open spaces between the houses: Some had placed painted stones as decoration on the ground in their yard, some had planted flowers under scrubby bushes, and in one yard there was even a group who had completely taken over the maintenance responsibilities from the housing company.
Besides the involvement processes per se, the spatial context in which they take place is also identified as an interesting object to study: the semi-public open spaces, in Swedish often called bostadsgårdar (residential yards), in multi-family rental housing areas in metropolitan suburbs. Many of these ar-eas are facing great challenges due to escalating segregation in the cities. Pov-erty, a lack of safety and service deficits become concentrated in certain areas, causing stigmatisation, social exclusion and further decay. This makes the ar-eas as such interesting and relevant to study. The residential yards constitute everyday life spaces for individual inhabitants, and also function as arenas for social interaction. Current discourses on urban form concentrate on the public spaces of streets, squares and parks, while the semi-public functions of spaces such as residential yards receive less attention. Specific features of the residen-tial yard are examined further in Thematic paper D, and the context of Swed-ish suburbs is discussed in Thematic paper E.
1.2. The research project As described in the previous section the phenomenon of tenant involvement in open space management, especially in the context of Swedish large-scale suburban rental housing areas, appeared to be a good study object that com-bined my interests in urban green spaces, participative planning processes and social relations in the local community, under the umbrella of the overarching question of how to achieve sustainable development. When the research pro-
INTRODUCTION · 13
ject was to be designed, a similar project, aiming to compare different forms of open space management in rental housing areas, was under development at the Department of Landscape Management at the Swedish University of Ag-ricultural Sciences (SLU) in Alnarp. Researchers at two additional faculties were invited – the Department of Sociology at the Faculty of Social Sciences and the Council for Local Government Research and Education (KEFU) at the School of Economics and Management, both at Lund University – and together we formulated an application for an interdisciplinary research project called ‘Sustainable Management of Residential Yards’. This project, financed by the Swedish Research Council Formas, has been an important source of support during the main part of my PhD project. It has offered a valuable fo-rum for discussing methods and findings across disciplinary borders. We have also met with practitioners in housing management through study visits and seminars. Most important has been the collaboration with my PhD student colleagues Therese Lindgren and Maria Nilsen, which has involved sharing empirical material, co-writing articles and sharing feedback on thoughts and manuscripts.
1.2.1. Purpose and research objectives
The overall purpose of my PhD project has been to explore tenant involve-ment in open space management in Swedish rental housing areas, as a con-temporary social urban phenomenon with the potential to connect several critical issues of concern regarding the question of how society can be devel-oped in a more sustainable way. The overarching research question can thus be formulated as: How can tenant involvement in open space management con-tribute to sustainable development in Swedish rental housing areas?
I have approached this question in several ways. As a point of departure for theoretical inquiries, I have explored the question of how sustainable devel-opment can be understood in relation to the study object, i.e. in relation to the phenomenon of tenant involvement in open space management in Swedish rental housing areas. Rather than searching for all possible connections, which would undoubtedly result in a giant complex of issues, I let the search be guided by the themes outlined in Figure 6: (a) social relations in the local community; (b) citizen participation in urban design and planning processes; and (c) the role of urban green spaces. Thereby, an important objective for the research has been to establish theoretical frameworks for discussing and examining how the studied involvement processes may contribute to, or ob-struct, sustainable development in regard to the outlined themes.
Prior to this, however, was the need to explore, understand and describe the phenomenon as such: Which forms do processes of tenant involvement in open space management take in Swedish rental housing; how can they be ty-pologised; how do they function in practice; and what are their typical out-comes? These questions demanded empirical inquiries, which on the one hand have been informed by the theoretical framework and on the other hand have contributed to identifying new issues and perspectives in the theory develop-ment. On a more detailed level, the research objectives have been to: (a) compile and analyse conclusions from previous studies on tenant involvement in open space management and related phenomena in both Sweden and other countries, and thereby be able to identify possible knowledge gaps; (b) de-
14
velop models for the typologisation of the concerned involvement processes and learn more about where and in which forms they take place; and (c) per-form a more in-depth analysis of potential outcomes through an in situ case study.
Figure 7 provides an overview of the research project and its parts. It illus-trates the theoretical framework, where the three themes of community, par-ticipation and place are applied to interpret the global vision of sustainable development in relation local contexts of tenant involvement in open space management and vice versa. It also illustrates the framework of empirical in-quiries building up a more concrete understanding of the study object: a re-view of previous studies, an overview survey and a case study.
Figure 7. The structure of the research project and an overview of its parts.
1.2.2. Relevance of the study
As established above, this is primarily an explorative study, aiming at describ-ing the practice of tenant involvement in open space management in Swedish rental housing areas, and discussing its potential roles in sustainable develop-ment. Hence, the intention of the project has not been finding ‘solutions’ to a predefined societal ‘problem’. Nevertheless, a potential interest of the chosen study object has been recognised, which relates to contemporary urban chal-lenges. In conjuncture with the entrances presented in Section 1.1.3, an impor-tant point of departure is the debate on deprived urban areas, in Sweden vaguely conceptualised as ‘the suburb issue’. A general introduction to this debate and my own standpoints regarding some of its discourses are provided in Thematic paper E. Tenant involvement in open space management can, at least partly, be seen as local responses to marginalisation, just like the self-organisation processes described by Lina Olsson (2008) or the self-management vision of Henri Lefebvre (1968/1996; 1970/2003). Also in the Swedish governmental commission on democracy before the millennium shift, far-reaching opportunities for local citizens to assume responsibility and en-gage in shaping their living conditions are highlighted as a natural policy ob-jective, indeed as an end in itself (SOU, 2000, p. 241):
INTRODUCTION · 15
Our point of departure is that the Swedish people’s government should in-volve significant elements of self-organisation, decentralisation and self-management. Thereby, space is given for diversity in the participation and a great deal of pluralism and autonomy.
However, this study is not only relevant in the light of suburban marginalisa-tion or visions of new urban regimes. On a more pragmatic and concrete level, it deals with housing companies’ management practices and local tenants’ eve-ryday life situations, addressing issues such as how the land resources can take on new functions, how the tenants’ skills and knowledge can be utilised, how social relations may develop, and how it all can affect amenity and manage-ment efficiency. The study draws on an identified need for interdisciplinary research aiming to connect specific local ‘real life’ situations with general global and more abstract sustainable development issues (see, e.g., Malbert et al., 2004, p. 77). The chosen study object provides a good possibility to explore such connections.
1.3. Structure of the dissertation The fundament of this thesis is formed by the five peer-reviewed research pa-pers introduced in the next section and republished in the third part of the dissertation. These papers present the most important findings from the em-pirical inquiries. However, besides these papers, the dissertation also com-prises a relatively extensive introductory section as well as a second part pre-senting special ‘thematic papers’; see Figure 8.
Figure 8. Structure of the dissertation. The introductory part draws from the papers especially in Chapter 3, which discusses the results.
The second part containing the thematic papers is an unconventional compo-nent of a doctoral dissertation. It presents important aspects of the project’s findings, especially regarding the development of conceptual frameworks. The five thematic papers cover a broad set of issues, some of which are not directly related to the core research questions. Rather than aiming at a coherent and condense description of the theoretical approach or a state of the art, they are intended to provide a broad theoretical and contextual backdrop towards which the analyses of the empirical results can be situated. They also function as a referential source, developing certain discussions and relating them to
16
different discourses and theorists. The thematic papers are written as rela-tively free-standing texts, but not with the intention of publishing them sepa-rately.
While the papers in Part 3 of the compilation as well as the thematic papers in Part 2 are central to the doctoral thesis, it should be possible to get a com-prehensive understanding of the research project as a whole and its findings by reading only the first part. Part 1 also provides much more detailed infor-mation on the origins of the project, the methods, and the material. Its current introduction chapter has thus far introduced my personal entry into the pro-ject, using the Epistemology Tree as a frame. It has also presented the pro-ject’s purpose, objectives and relevance. In the subsequent section, which con-cludes the chapter, the five papers are presented. Chapter 2 discusses the epis-temological and ontological approaches and presents the methods used in the different studies. The results from the theoretical as well as empirical inquiries are presented and discussed in Chapter 3, with many references to the papers. The main conclusions are summarised in Chapter 4. The appendices include more detailed information on the methods, particularly regarding the case study.
1.4. Introduction to the papers The five peer-reviewed papers compiled in Part 3 of the dissertation present the main findings of the empirical studies. This section will briefly introduce the contents of the papers and how they relate to each other and to the pro-ject. Although the order of the papers is not far from the chronology, it first and foremost follows a thematic logic. This logic can be described as a move from concrete exploration towards more reflection on implications and theo-retical connections. The first two papers present findings from the overview surveys and the development of typologies of involvement processes. The third paper also analyses the overview surveys, but with a focus on the housing companies. The fourth paper, reporting on the case study, goes deeper into analysing some of the social outcomes. The last paper, drawing on the litera-ture review on collective gardening, widens the perspectives both thematically and geographically, and places the discussion in relation to the urban chal-lenge of neighbourhood deprivation.
Paper I
Space for community: on the study of resident involvement in neighbour-hood space management (Castell, 2006)
Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Urban Regeneration and Sustainability (“The Sustainable City IV”), organised by the Wessex Institute of Technology 17–19 July, 2006, in Tallinn.
Published 2006 in The Sustainable City IV: Urban Regeneration and Sus-tainability, Mander, Brebbia and Tiezzi (eds.), WIT Transactions on Ecol-ogy and the Environment, WIT Press, Southampton.
This relatively short paper presents a condense analysis of previous studies conducted in Sweden on tenant involvement in open space management,
INTRODUCTION · 17
which together with findings from the survey constitutes a basis for developing a typological model of involvement processes. This model builds on the results presented in the conference paper “Resident involvement in neighborhood space management” (Castell, 2005), and is further developed in Paper II.
Paper II
Involving tenants in open space management: experiences from Swedish rental housing areas (Castell, 2010)
Published 2010 in Urban Geography, Vol. 31, Issue 2, pp. 236-258.
This paper presents key findings from the survey of involvement processes in Göteborg. Its emphasis is to characterise different types of processes and compare the identified formal ones. It is concluded that there is a geographi-cally widespread, albeit relatively marginal, tradition of tenant involvement in open space management in the city’s rental housing areas. The processes oc-cur in very different types of areas and there are different organisational ar-rangements. However, all formal processes take place in areas owned by the three largest municipal housing companies, which suggests that housing com-panies’ support and general approach to involvement plays a significant role in how tenants’ engagement is canalised. The paper summarises and develops some of the results previously presented in the conference paper “Resident involvement in neighborhood space management” (Castell, 2005).
Paper III
Open space management in residential areas: how it is organised and why (Lindgren & Castell, 2008)
Published 2008 in the International Journal of Strategic Property Manage-ment, Vol. 12, Issue 3, pp. 141-160.
This paper delves deeply into analysing the housing companies’ choices of organisational structure for their open space management. It is found that one of the key arguments for in-house and local area-based management is that it enhances good relations with the tenants, while the opposite choices, i.e. con-tractors and circulating management teams, are typically motivated by a focus on cost-effectiveness and technical quality. However, many housing compa-nies use mixed forms and ‘ambivalent’ combinations. The paper is produced in close cooperation with my colleague Therese Lindgren. We have carried out two separate telephone surveys among housing companies in two different regions, and the analyses and the writing process have been performed as teamwork. We have contributed equally throughout the process.
Paper IV
The ambiguity of togetherness: experiences from a participative open space management initiative in a residential area (Castell, submitted-a)
Submitted for publication in an international academic journal.
In this paper, the concept of neighbourhood togetherness is developed to ana-lyse some of the findings from the case study. The central claim, that togeth-
18
erness has potentially ‘good’ and ‘bad’ sides, has been distilled and modified through several rewritings of the paper. Reflecting on the experiences of to-getherness and conflicts at the four yards through the lens of social network theory, some possible management strategies aiming at enhancing neighbour contacts and bridging divides are discussed. One key conclusion is that strong-tie togetherness, in contrast to what is often suggested, may contribute to the extension of weak-tie networking and bridging contacts. However, as it may also manifest underlying tensions and increase divides, it is important to ana-lyse both structural and cognitive dimensions of how togetherness is practiced.
Paper V
Collective gardening and deprived neighbourhoods: a literature review (Castell, submitted-b)
Based on the paper “Collective gardening as a coping strategy for residents in deprived urban neighbourhoods: a literature review” (Castell, 2009), pre-sented at the international conference Changing Housing Markets: Integra-tion and Segmentation (“ENHR09”), organised by the European Network for Housing Research (ENHR) 28 June–1 July, 2009, in Prague.
Submitted for publication in an international academic journal.
At a late stage of the project, the results from previous studies were revisited and reanalysed in an extended literature review. In this paper, the focus is to examine the potential of collective gardening (which includes tenant involve-ment in open space management) to respond to the complex issue of urban deprivation. Four examples are presented from fourteen case studies in the literature, selected for a deeper analysis of collective gardening and regenera-tion of deprived urban neighbourhoods. An analytical framework is devel-oped based on three levels: the outcomes for residents, for the neighbour-hood, and for society. Although there is apparently a strong potential in col-lective gardening initiatives, some questions emerge that call for further in-quiry. Importantly, the issues of potential conflict and exclusion mechanisms within the local communities are analysed very little in previous research.
METHODS · 19
METHODS
This chapter is divided into three main sections. The first (2.1) elaborates on the ontological, epistemological and methodological points of departure. This section also includes a methodological discussion regarding the theoretical inquiries. In the second section (2.2), the methods used in the empirical in-quiries are described. The last section (2.3) adds some final reflections on the methodological approach.
2.1. General research approach The project reported on in this dissertation is a research project with the am-bition to cross disciplinary borders as well as those between abstract general theories and concrete local experiences. In this kind of research it is particu-larly important to highlight the epistemological points of departure, which is a main aim of this section.
The idea of the Epistemology Tree introduced in Chapter 1 has been some-thing for me to hang on to, facilitating the intellectual exercises involved with moving across scales and borders. Tree climbing has always been one of my favourite activities, and indeed there is a very special feeling when sitting in the foliage watching the leaves, each leaf carrying its own universe, its own unique composition of delicate details. The foliage sways in the wind and changes its shape and colours each moment. Somehow it is obvious that every-thing is interlinked, but it is difficult for anyone sitting among the leaves to comprehend how the twigs and branches are connected to the overall struc-ture of the tree. On the other hand, if you climb down you lose sight of the details of the leaves. The most difficult, however, is to explore the root system to find where the tree receives its nourishment.
The following three subsections will in different ways reflect on this prob-lem, raising questions about what society is and how we can learn something about it.
20
2.1.1. Holistic and atomistic worldviews
Anthropologist Ernest Gellner begins his book Language and Solitude(posthumously published 1998) by manifesting that “There are two fundamen-tal theories of knowledge”. The two theories eventually appear to be two hy-pothetical end poles of a spectrum of mixed epistemological as well as onto-logical standpoints and, as he claims: “This polarity, and the tension between its two poles, is one of the deepest and most pervasive themes in modern thought” (p. 181). Gellner uses several notions for the two theories or poles, one conceptualisation being the atomistic versus the holistic worldview. In this case, the core issue is whether the world can be explained as a sum of its parts, or if there is something of an essence between the parts which can only be understood by looking at the wholeness. As the epistemological implications are his main focus, Gellner describes the atomistic standpoint in terms of knowledge being “granular entities” which are “ultimately composed of cogni-tive atoms” (p. 4). He also uses brick building as a metaphor, whereby the bricks are knowledge granules which can be put together in different ways to form a knowledge paradigm. “Separation, segregation, analysis, and interde-pendence are at the heart of this approach. Everything that is separable ought to be separated, at least in thought if not in reality” (p. 4). The opposite standpoint instead emphasises that every individual is anchored in a social and cultural context, always acting as a participant in a “collective game”. Onto-logically this holistic, or organic, worldview is constituted of a system of ele-ments, intimately and intricately related to each other and thereby inseparable in thought as well as in reality. The researcher is also part of the organic sys-tem, and an epistemological consequence is that the world cannot be ‘objec-tively’ observed and analysed. In other words, all knowledge is context-bound in the holistic worldview.
Gellner’s polarisation of atomism and holism (atomism also associated with individualism, rationalism and universalism; holism with organicism, romanti-cism, communalism and relativism) is just as complex and comprehensive in its ambitions as Ferdinand Tönnies’ (1887/1957) famous dualism of Gesell-schaft and Gemeinschaft (see Thematic paper B). Every aspect of human life, thought and culture seems to have its place in this overwhelming dual struc-ture. To a large extent, however, Gellner’s focus is on epistemology and, more specifically, on modern language philosophy. In particular, Gellner aims to discredit Ludwig Wittgenstein, which has made him a rather controversial name himself (see, e.g., Uschanov, 2002). Language and Solitude primarily attacks the atomistic worldview and the early, reductionist, Wittgensteinian positivism. However, Gellner also rejects Wittgenstein’s later, more relativis-tic thought, which he associates with extreme romanticism.
Overall, Gellner views the atomistic tradition as well as its extreme antithe-sis with disgust. He illustrates the individualist/rationalist as a serious and bor-ing “precision-machine” (Gellner, 1998, p. 17): “Clearly, this is a trustworthy reliable man, but not exactly exciting and stimulating. You might be pleased to have him as your bank manager, but be less thrilled to find him your dinner companion.” Romanticists, on the other hand, are portrayed as narrow-minded reactionaries who feel threatened by the crusade of universalists. “[T]he cult of Gemeinschaft”, he writes, “appealed to those who hated the disenchanting vision, and naively thought they could escape it” (p. 185). “And
METHODS · 21
what they hate above all else are just those damned cosmopolitans, who lack roots of their own and wish to impose their rootlessness on others” (p. 19).
While dismissing Wittgenstein’s pretentious writings (using his own kind of arrogance), Gellner instead praises the work of Bronislav Malinowski, who pioneered in basing anthropology on thorough ethnographic fieldwork such as participant observation. Malinowski clearly represents an anti-atomistic and anti-universalistic epistemology, emphasising cultural relativism and the re-searcher’s role as a subjective interpreter. In his essay A Scientific Theory of Culture, Malinowski (1944, p. 8) writes: “However we may define the word science in some philosophical or epistemological system, it is clear that it be-gins with the use of previous observation for the prediction of the future.”
Today, it is not a remarkable standpoint to suggest that culture matters and that the study of social life puts the researcher in a position of interpretation. Asplund (2002) takes a slightly more radical position when he seems to ques-tion the very idea of individual minds. The core message in his book Genom huvudet is that knowledge production by necessity is a dialogical endeavour, best facilitated by social processes. He argues that seemingly ‘solipsistic’ prob-lem solving, e.g. as carried out by a ‘lonely philosopher in his chamber’, is in fact a simulation of a social communication game involving different actors. “Thinking may sometimes appear to be a private matter but in its basic form it is a public matter” (Asplund, 2002, p. 158). Asplund’s criticism of the prevail-ing solipsism in cognitive theory adds a dimension to the atomism-holism dis-cussion.
The colloquies discussed above can also be related to the philosophical con-frontation between realism and relativism. In this regard, critical realism pro-vides an interesting perspective, linking the two ostensibly contradictory worldviews. According to Stenberg (2004, drawing on Berth Danermark and Roy Bhaskar), critical realism distinguishes between three ontologically sepa-rate domains of reality: the ‘empirical’ , which is what we perceive; the ‘ac-tual’, which is what actually happens independent of how we perceive it; and the ‘real’, which is what causes the events to happen. The overall epistemo-logical approach of the study presented in this dissertation was outlined in the introduction, acknowledging the ‘empirical’ experiences as well as the relativ-istic and subjective interpretations of it and the constant reconceptualisation of the ‘actual’ and the ‘real’.
2.1.2. Overall methodological approach
Based on these ontological and epistemological points of departure, this sub-section will discuss the methodological approach in the research project from a general point of view, before starting to describe the actual methods.
Paradigmatic or pragmatic approaches
My colleagues and sustainable building researchers Michael Edén, Paula Fe-menía and Liane Thuvander’s studies of demonstration projects in architec-ture elucidate the necessity of both paradigmatic and pragmatic strategies to reform the building industry and adapt it to demands for drastically reduced energy use and other environmental concerns. In Thuvander (2004), as well as in Femenías and Edén (2009), three levels of building practice above ‘business
22
as usual’ are discussed: (1) the basic level, which is the minimum progress from the standards that should be expected of a company looking ahead; (2) the best practice level, which is using the best known and tested technique; and (3) the innovative or experimental level, which tries new techniques and concepts (see Figure 9). As the development proceeds among the majority of building companies, the standard regulations will successively be raised to force the ‘laggards’ to follow. This means that the ambitions on the other lev-els will also be raised. Projects and companies on different ambition levels are linked to each other through providing a basis for more ambitious projects and attracting less ambitious companies to follow. The different ambition lev-els, from the more pragmatic basic level to the more ‘paradigmatic’ or pio-neering one are therefore needed for overall progress to take place.
Figure 9. Model of three levels of building practice in demonstration projects (Thuvander, 2004; see also Femenías & Edén, 2009, p. 9, for a more devel-oped model)
Mikael Götlind, another architect associated with my research group, once proposed at a seminar that research is an art of balancing innovativeness and certainty according to Figure 10. The graph aims to illustrate that high levels of innovativeness are difficult to combine with high levels of certainty, al-though the combination is what we should always strive for. Comparing this with building practice and the model presented in Figure 9 above, it could be suggested that the dominant research practice is focussed on certainty rather than innovativeness, and that there is a need for both.
Götlind’s model is applicable to different phases in a research design. Should we deal with well-documented problems or explore new areas? Should we ask questions we will be able to answer, or more open and elusive ques-tions? Should we use traditional methods or try unconventional ones? Should we apply established theories in the analysis or should we develop new mod-els? In short: How closely do we relate to a given research tradition? There are many reasons to search for the new, not only for the chance to be innova-tive. It can be a way to be more receptive of the particularities of a study ob-ject, and it can contribute to a deeper learning process for the researcher. However, there are also many reasons to stay closer to established conven-tions, not least when it comes to communicating the results.
Well-reasoned, future-oriented activities sup-porting sustainable development. Require ex-periments and testing of new products and systems as well as a thoroughly planned proc-ess that emphasises the necessity of evaluation.
That which can be achieved with products and techniques currently available. Learning through practice, i.e. in implementation.
Measures that fulfil environmental and social requirements and standards. Tested and available techniques and approaches, i.e. im-plementation processes, come into use.
Inno-vativelevel
Best practicelevel
Basic level
METHODS · 23
Figure 10. Götlind’s graph of the relationship between innovativeness and certainty in research. Research focussing on innovation typically lacks credi-bility because of uncertainties. A key attraction is thus to increase certainty in the results (A). Correspondingly, research with high levels of certainty typically deals with already well-studied phenomena, and a key attraction there is to increase the level of innovativeness (B).
It could be asserted that researchers at the architecture department, in rela-tion to many other departments and faculties, are significantly more prone to making their own straggling odysseys on foreign waters, rather than navigat-ing along the marked waterways. As a research field, architecture and design has a fairly young history and relatively few of those grand old men who make up the stable foundation of many other disciplines (not least sociology, which is one of the fields I find myself interacting with). Another reason for many architect researchers’ unwillingness to conform to established models can also be that there is a strong idea prevailing among architecture students, and pre-sent in the curriculum, of the virtues of developing individual artistries and searching for new and innovative solutions. Although this research project is not significantly characterised by an overall rebellion approach, it has at least had an aim to search for something besides mere conformation to established models. In line with the above discussion on the need of both pragmatism and ‘paradigmatic’ innovativeness, I can see advantages and disadvantages of both rebellion and conformant approaches to established theory, and during the process I have felt attracted by both.
Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity
The research traditions at the department of architecture have unclear disci-plinary boundaries, not only because they have had relatively little time to develop but also because they cover a diverse set of fields. Chalmers is a tech-nical university, while the department of architecture by tradition nurtures a somewhat androgynous identity, floating between the humanities, social sci-ences and technology. On the other hand, I have gradually realised that disci-
Innovativeness
Certainty
A
B
24
plinary androgyny seems to be the rule rather than the exception also in many other faculties and departments. Apparently, many young researchers tend to extend their search outside the traditional disciplinary borders of their field.
This tendency of transgressing traditional disciplinary borders can be seen as a natural consequence of the evolution of science, beginning with the ‘uni-science’ of ancient Greece and successively branching into increasingly spe-cialised disciplines (Klein, 1990). This specialisation has been necessary for advances in all fields, but many of the issues encountered interrelate with other fields in complex ways and then a narrow disciplinary perspective pre-sents a limitation. This is part of the background of what Michael Gibbons, Helga Nowotny and others have identified as a new mode of knowledge pro-duction – ‘Mode 2’ (Gibbons et al., 1994; Nowotny, Scott & Gibbons, 2001). Gibbons (1999) also describes it in terms of a new social contract between science and society, in which previous claims of scientific ‘reliability’ are sup-plemented with requirements of broader participation and accountability.
In this regard, a distinction is often made between transdisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity (as well as other forms of disciplinary and cross-disciplinary approaches). Often, interdisciplinarity refers to an in-depth collaboration whereby common models and frameworks are developed in the juncture be-tween two or more scholarly disciplines (see, e.g., Ramadier, 2004). Transdis-ciplinarity then represents the search for totally new ways of understanding reality beyond disciplinary perspectives. The ‘Mode 2’ vision further empha-sises transdisciplinarity as an attempt to bridge the gap between academia and practice, much in the way that is urged by Björn Malbert (see page 9).
Although there has been an attempt both to transgress my (unclear) disci-plinary boundaries and to develop knowledge in close relation to housing management practice, there have been no explicit aims to work transdiscipli-narily. However, the overall research design is interdisciplinary, with meetings between different disciplines as an important point of departure for the devel-opment of models and interpretation of results.
2.1.3. Theoretical inquiries
The starting point of the project was to understand how sustainable develop-ment can be interpreted in the context of tenant involvement in open space management in Swedish rental housing areas. For this, the three research plat-forms described in Section 1.1.3 provided an initial framework, which needed to be both scoped down to more specific areas and extended into new areas outside the initial framework. Two kinds of movements can be described in this exercise. First, there is the ‘horizontal’ movement between different theo-retical fields, incorporating, e.g., sociological theories on modernity, networks and social capital, game theory, participative planning theory and urban geog-raphy. Second, it is also possible to talk about a ‘vertical’ movement between different scales, or rather between different distances from the empirical con-texts. The general modelling of sustainable development is an example of more distant theory, while the conceptualisations of tenant involvement and semi-public spaces are more ‘context-close’ theories.
I have used different tools to facilitate the process of exploring, structuring and assimilating the great amount of worldviews, models and concepts en-countered. There have been tonnes of conceptual figures sketched on the back
METHODS · 25
of pieces of paper from the recycling bin. My initial collecting of handwritten notes soon resulted in congested folders and a mess of paper piles on my desk-top. I therefore turned more and more to computer-based data filing to enable fast keyword and phrase searching of notes and documents. I have used data-base software to store my own text notes and fragments of theoretical analy-ses. In certain cases, I also used matrices to analyse different aspects of key concepts.
The writing process itself must also be regarded as an important part of the research practice – not just a means of reporting knowledge, but also of pro-ducing knowledge. “By writing in different ways,” Laurel Richardson (2000, p. 923) argues, “we discover new aspects of our topic and our relationship to it”. Richardson rejects any static or formal models of academic writing and in-stead encourages innovative elaborations on forms and styles, as long as we are conscious of how it affects the content. Adopting poststructuralist think-ing, she emphasises the importance of seeing both the researcher and the reader in a cultural context: “Language is how social organization and power are defined and contested and the place where our sense of selves, our subjec-tivity, is constructed” (p. 929). Thereby, she argues, we need to “understand ourselves reflexively as persons writing from particular positions at specific times” and accept that the interpretation of the text will also be dependent on when, where and by whom it is read. Richardson’s thoughts about academic writing can be connected to the discussion on an organic worldview, as well as the above discussion on pragmatic and paradigmatic research approaches. Her standpoints give incentives for being transparent about one’s own background and personal positions, and for developing new metaphors and forms to com-municate knowledge.
2.2. Methods used in the empirical inquiries With the general research approach having been discussed, this section pro-vides a brief overview of the data collection and analysis methods used in the three empirical inquiries (see Table 1). The notion of ‘empirical inquiries’ and the way they are distinguished from ‘theoretical inquiries’ in this dissertation require clarification. Empirical data is normally understood as data which has been observed directly by the researcher, in contrast to what is concluded on the basis of thinking. However, observations also involve theoretical precon-ceptions and the distinction is not as obvious as it may seem at first. Moreover, data collected indirectly from respondents, e.g. in an interview or a survey, is usually regarded as empirical, even though all facts are not directly observed by the researcher. Document studies are also ambiguous for the same reason – the researcher collects and analyses data which has already been compiled and presented by someone else. The literature review described below is particu-larly ambiguous, as it is an inventory of both theoretical models and previous empirical findings. Here, empirical is understood as a matter of collection methods rather than of the nature of the data collected. Methods used in the project as a whole can be said to range from the more intuitive to the more formalistic. On one end of this scale we can place ‘opportunistic’ ad hoc searching, such as when discussing issues with initiated persons, scanning documents or sketching models for interpretation. What is described here as empirical inquiries is typically placed towards the other end of the scale: sys-
26
tematic and well-documented collection and analysis of data following con-sciously chosen and articulated procedures.
The methodological emphasis in the project has been on designing and per-forming an in-depth case study. Before the case study, I studied previous re-search and conducted an overview survey to be able to develop typologies, elaborate the research questions and select a case. Also, after performing the case study I returned to perform a wider literature review, and followed up the initial overview survey of involvement processes.
Table 1. Overview of the main sets of empirical data used in the project.
Inquiry Empirical data sets N Sampling method1 Used in
Literaturereview
Texts on collective gardening 63 Database search and ‘snowball sampling’ aim-ing at ‘high coverage’
PV (PI, PII)
Telephone interviews with hous-ing company employees in Göte-borg
562 Aiming at ‘full coverage’ PI, PII, PIII
Telephone interviews with housing company employees in Skåne3
Aiming at ‘full coverage’ PIII
Overviewsurveys
Telephone interviews with in-volved tenants and project coordi-nators
24 ‘Snowball sampling’ aim-ing at ‘high coverage’
PI, PII
Questionnaires to tenants 81 Aiming at ‘full coverage’ PIV
Observations in the yards 62 ‘Quasi-random’ aiming at ‘maximum variety’
PIV
Case study
In-depth interviews with tenants and management staff
14 ‘Snowball sampling’ aim-ing at ‘maximum variety’
PIV
1 ‘Snowball sampling’ refers to a successive search for more and more data units, whereby one may help to find others. ‘Quasi-random’ refers to spread and unintendedly patterned but not calculatedly random. ‘High coverage’ refers to the pragmatic intention to identify as many as possible, acknowledg-ing that some will be missed due to a lack of information. ‘Full coverage’ refers to a higher intention to sample all of a certain studied unit. ‘Maximum variety’ refers to the strategy of sampling a limited number of heterogeneous units which together cover a set of predefined variables. 2 Representing 31 housing companies 3 Data collected by Therese Lindgren
Table 1 presents an overview of the three empirical inquiries performed in the project. In the following three sections, the methods for each of these will be presented in detail.
2.2.1. Literature review of previous case studies
A first step was to obtain a general orientation on the subject, i.e. to learn about current and previous experiences of tenant involvement in open space management and associated issues. The main source of information has been literature reviews, but personal contacts have also been important. Previous studies on participative open space management in Sweden have typically
METHODS · 27
been published in Swedish reports and reportages for a local or national audi-ence of housing managers, politicians, engaged residents and researchers; very rarely have these studies lead to international research publications. Corre-spondingly, input from initiatives studied abroad is not commonly found in discussions about Swedish cases. I decided to broaden my general orientation from the Swedish rental housing area context to an international level and include participative open space management in urban neighbourhoods broadly. I also decided to contribute to making Swedish experiences available to international comparisons, by writing English articles for publication in research journals. These two decisions obliged me to perform a more ex-tended and thorough review of previous experiences.
I used literature initially in the project to set the state of the art and to iden-tify knowledge gaps. However, the extended and more systematic literature review, here discussed as one of my three empirical studies, was carried out at a late stage. Its two main objectives were to search for aspects I had previously neglected and to look for confirmation or possible applications of the findings from the other empirical studies and developed theoretical models. The re-view also served to compile previous knowledge in a more comprehensive way.
There are relatively few studies that match the subject precisely, i.e. that look explicitly into tenant involvement in open space management in Swedish rental housing areas. To get more input, and to connect to closely related fields, the scope for the review has been broadened to also include contexts other than Swedish rental housing areas. The more inclusive term ‘collective gardening’ has been adopted to cover not only tenant involvement, and not only rental housing areas, but a larger set of contexts and types of processes whereby citizens as a collective endeavour participate in developing and main-taining open green spaces, particularly the well-recorded North American ‘community gardens’. See page 41 for a more thorough presentation of these terms.
The common denominator in the literature included in the review is that it describes and analyses collective gardening processes, or aspects of collective gardening. It involves a total of 63 publications of different kinds. About half report from the US, one-third from Sweden, and the remaining from Canada, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, and Australia. A broad set of academic disciplines are represented, such as geography, leisure sciences, sociology, social work, economy, public health and architecture. Most studies look for outcomes achieved by collective gardening, and sometimes evaluate specific projects. Some are more focused on policy issues and improvement strategies.
The sample of reviewed studies needs to be commented on, particularly as it is apparently geographically very unbalanced and it is very unlikely that it represents the true distribution of collective gardening projects. The main method of identifying relevant literature has been to search in scholarly data-bases and then follow up on cited references and new search strings. This sampling strategy aims at optimising the coverage of sources within a prede-fined thematic frame. Adding relevant cited references to the list is an exam-ple of the ‘chain referral’ technique (also known as ‘snowball sampling’), al-though this notion is more typically associated with interview studies (see, e.g., Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981; Kemper, Stringfield & Teddlie, 2003). One obvi-ous explanation for the geographically skewed sample is the language barrier.
28
Collective gardening consists of place-based local social processes, and these processes are typically described in native languages. My search has been lim-ited to writings in English and Swedish. However, the local language problem does not explain the entire sample problem. For example, it does not explain the extreme dominance of US cases, considering all the English-speaking countries over the world. Most probably, the phenomenon of collective gar-dening is not acknowledged or studied evenly in all countries. It is also clear that the institutional support for collective gardening is very uneven in differ-ent countries. While there are plenty of support groups and even influential networks on national a scale in the US, a study from the Barcelona Metropoli-tan Region in Spain describes a situation in which local informal urban gar-dening initiatives receive no institutional support (Domene & Saurí, 2007). Searching on, e.g., “urban agriculture” gives a much more geographically spread result, with studies from all continents. Assumably, collective garden-ing can also be found all over the world.
Most studies apply a qualitative approach and many are typical case stud-ies, i.e. they aim to give a rich description of one or a limited number of collec-tive garden processes. The main component of these case studies is often nar-ratives told by the gardeners – about the development of the process, about its current functions and organisation, outcomes, challenges and conflicts, etc. Observations are also used in many of the case studies. There are hardly any case studies of collective gardening that do not offer illustrative verbal de-scriptions of the physical appearance of the garden. Layout plans and photos are also often provided, which gives the reader a sense of how it looks. How-ever, the physical features are seldom subjected to deeper analysis or theoreti-cal reflection. For analytical purposes, observations have also been used to monitor social activities in collective gardening processes. Participant observa-tions are included in some studies, and in one case a focus group of informants took part in the entire research process, from identifying questions to finalis-ing the analysis. There are also studies that apply a quantitative approach, using different kinds of statistical measures in their analysis. The data collec-tion then consists of questionnaires, telephone surveys or Geographical In-formation Systems (GIS).
Methods of analysis
The literature review has been approached in a similar way as the analysis of the interviews, described below. As suggested by Starrin et al. (1991), the starting point has been to go through the empirical material (in this case the selected literature) with a relatively open question rather than a predefined narrow interpretation model. This allows new themes and aspects to emerge from the studied material. As the material is being read and preliminary coded, a more elaborate analytical framework will gradually develop. Starrin et al. discuss this in terms of saturation, i.e. that there is a point at which the essentials of the issue addressed appear to be covered and no new themes or aspects arise. At this point, the final structure of the framework (list of codes, overall themes, aspects, and causalities) is set and the material can be revis-ited.
Contrary to the interviews, however, the reviewed text documents are based on a variety of research questions, purposes and methods, as well as
METHODS · 29
different ontological and epistemological points of departure. The material is thus much more diverse, and a fully open coding would be impossible. The term meta-analysis is often used for studies aiming to synthesise previous studies. The typical meta-analysis has a primarily quantitative approach, proc-essing quantified data from different studies and using statistical methods. In the present study, however, it is a matter of qualitative synthesis of mainly qualitative data, which is completely different. The analysis has been facili-tated by using a matrix in which findings and conclusions from the reviewed literature have been compared thematically.
2.2.2. Overview surveys and typologisations
One direct insight when looking at previous studies of tenant involvement in open space management was that there is little documentation on how com-mon these processes are, and no sufficient typologies of different forms of processes. In general, studies are done to show or evaluate particularly suc-cessful initiatives. I therefore saw it as an important step in my project to de-velop a model for categorising different kinds of involvement processes and to do a more coherent mapping of them to see which forms they take, where they take place and how common they are. To answer these questions, I needed to do a thorough inventory of involvement processes. The study was limited to the municipality of Göteborg to make it manageable. Göteborg is regarded as one of Sweden’s three ‘metropolitan’ cities, and offers great vari-ety of housing areas and housing companies in comparison to smaller cities, towns and rural areas. It seemed to have an appropriate size and a fruitful context, and it was convenient to choose a place nearby. As a first part of this mapping I conducted a survey among housing companies, which additionally gave me the opportunity to map out how these companies organise their open space management and how they view tenant involvement. A second step (though performed parallel to the housing company survey) was to obtain more knowledge about the identified involvement processes, which led to a second survey, primarily addressing tenants and project leaders.
The primary motive for performing the housing company survey was to map out involvement processes. However, I was also interested in the housing companies’ management forms and what experiences they had from tenant involvement. For the involvement processes, I wanted to know how they were organised and how they functioned, as broad and detailed as possible. I there-fore set up two files, one for housing companies and one for involvement processes. The most important data collection method used in the overview surveys was telephone interviews, carried out with employees of housing companies, tenants active in involvement processes, and three project leaders. Additional information was collected through the analysis of satellite photos and demographic statistics. The collected data was sorted into different data spreadsheets to facilitate the analysis.
The housing company survey
I began by listing housing companies in Göteborg, which was remarkably dif-ficult. Registers held by the Swedish Property Federation (organising private housing companies), the Association of Municipal Housing Companies, the
30
Union of Tenants, the municipality’s website for finding a dwelling and the official property owner register all gave different input. During the course of the project the housing market also went through considerable changes, with some companies merging and some selling out their rental apartments. In to-tal, the survey encompassed 32 companies in Göteborg managing at least 200 rental apartments. Together they managed 104,000 apartments, which means approximately three quarters of the city’s rental housing stock (see Figure 1 in Paper II). The remaining quarter largely consists of a vast number of small family companies or private landlords owning only one or two properties, normally older houses in central or semi-central areas.
As a first contact with the companies, I sent out a letter including questions about their management organisation and involvement initiatives. Some com-panies answered the questions by letter or email. However, the main method of collecting data was telephone interviews, and the main function of the letter was thus to prepare for an interview. I asked for the person(s) in charge of open space management and/or tenant involvement. At smaller companies I was often directed to the chief executive officer, while at larger companies I was rather directed to a person with executive responsibilities for a district or specifically open space management. At the largest companies, I had to con-tact many persons with different positions to receive the information I was looking for, and in many cases I also talked to management staff situated in a local housing area. In all, I performed 56 telephone interviews with housing company employees.
Interview guides (see Appendices A and B) were used, although the inter-views were performed in a relatively conversational and informal manner. Many companies, especially the smaller ones, claimed to have no experience of tenant involvement and some were very brief in their description of their management organisation. Such interviews sometimes lasted only five min-utes. Other interviews, however, lasted almost an hour.
As part of the Hållbo project (see page 12), my colleague Therese Lindgren conducted a similar survey among all municipal housing companies in the Skåne region in southern Sweden. Together, we also visited several housing areas in Malmö and met with managers and involved tenants. The Göteborg and Skåne overview surveys among housing companies formed the basis for our typological work and reflections on management strategies, presented in Paper III.
The survey of involvement processes
The main purpose of the housing company survey described above was actu-ally to identify involvement processes and involved tenants. I also used other sources, notably searching literature and contacting the Union of Tenants and other researchers. I developed a model for categorising different forms of ten-ant involvement, whereby one key distinction is between formal and informal processes, i.e. whether or not there is a written agreement with the housing company. One direct conclusion was that it is difficult to perform a reliable mapping of the many informal processes, but that the limited number of for-malised processes can be identified with sufficient certainty. I also saw a con-nection between formal arrangements, higher level of tenant control and more
METHODS · 31
comprehensive management tasks. Due to this, the inventory concentrated on formal involvement processes.
In 2005, when I first conducted the survey, 21 formal involvement processes had been identified. Three years later, when I followed up, this figure was 28. Besides receiving information from management staff, I interviewed three project leaders working with involvement projects (two at the Union of Ten-ants and one at the largest housing company), and interviewed contact per-sons from 21 of the involvement groups. The interviews were conducted simi-larly to those with the housing companies, using telephone and interview guides, although they were generally longer – from 20 minutes to an hour and 20 minutes. Notes were taken during the interviews and were then immedi-ately rewritten into more detailed protocols. On the basis of the telephone interviews, and in some cases also literature, I was able to enter into the data-base information on the processes (history, activities, organisation, involved persons, compensation, contracts, etc.). I also used satellite photos and official statistics to characterise the spatial structures, size, building age, demographic and socio-economic statistics of the area where the processes take place.
2.2.3. In-depth case study
The case study, carried out in the housing area Angered Centrum, is method-ologically the most elaborate part of the project. The case selection was based on finding a place with several similar yards with different forms and levels of involvement. Four yards in the area were selected for in-depth study, includ-ing observations, questionnaires to the residents and interviews with residents and management staff. The development of the general methodological case study approach is described and discussed in the next subsection, followed by detailed descriptions of the methods of case selection, data collection and analysis. Appendices C-G provide additional information on specific methods used in the case study, and Appendix H presents the housing area and the studied yards.
Some considerations regarding case studies
My initial intention was to design a methodology based on Robert Yin’s book Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2003). As the project went on, however, the general methodological approach shifted from Yin’s positivism and strict deductive procedures towards a more hermeneutic, inductive and ‘open-ended’ approach, inspired mainly by Robert E. Stake (1995; 2000). This section provides an introduction to my understanding of case study research in general and which kinds of considerations these two approaches imply.
As concluded by Yin (2003), the case study is a good methodology for stud-ies of contemporary phenomena (i.e. not historical research), in their real world context where you cannot control the events (i.e. you cannot use ex-perimental methods), and you want to answer questions of how and why (i.e. not only collect quantitative information answering questions of who, what, where, how many and how much). He also points out that case studies are often characterised by an unclear border between the study object and its con-text. Robert E. Stake (2000) has claimed that “case study is not a methodo-logical choice but a choice of what is to be studied”, reminding us that case
32
studies of different kinds are practiced in many diverse situations, even if they are not always called case studies. In line with Stake’s statement, Linda Groat and David Wang (2002) present the case study as a meta-methodology rather than a method in itself, i.e. a strategy for combining different techniques.
The subject of my research is a phenomenon consisting of local social proc-esses, which are more or less distinctive systems within small networks of neighbours at specific places. Each involvement process presents a case that is well suited for case studies, bounded socially to the group of residents who are actively involved and geographically to the yard or housing area where the managed spaces are shared.
From a positivistic point of view, Yin counters the common criticism of case studies’ lacking generalisability by emphasising the difference between statisticand analytic generalisation (Yin, 2003, pp. 32-33). Statistic generalisation is dependent on quantitative data from a large number of study units, which is not available in case studies. However, Yin argues that it is possible to draw general conclusions from even a single case study, if it is analytically con-nected to a theory. This means that if the case study’s results provide support for a theoretically based hypothesis, it is reasonable to assume that the same theory may be valid also for other similar cases.
Stake instead bases his epistemology on another type of ‘generalisation model’. Drawing on Spiro et al. (1987), he argues that each person’s cognitive flexibility and uniqueness in experience makes a case-based narrative a better mode of knowledge transfer than a well-structured, propositional presentation (Stake, 2000). Stake questions both the possibility of and the meaning of case study generalisation in Yin’s meaning. According to him, the generalisation lies in the possibility given to the reader to connect the presented case to other cases in her previous experience, what he calls naturalistic generalisation(Stake, 1995, p. 42). From every new case we can learn something more about the complex world.
Bent Flyvbjerg (2004, p. 425) expresses a similar thought, stating that “for-mal generalization is overvalued as a source of scientific development, whereas ‘the force of example’ is underestimated”. Flyvbjerg strongly empha-sises the sample procedure in case study methodology for being able to draw more conclusions from the case. For example, finding an extreme case rather than an average one can suit the purpose of exploring new possibilities and questioning established general assumptions. A critical case selection may form a basis for falsifying a statement or suggest a generalisation in line with ‘if this is valid for this case, it will logically be valid for any case’. Thus, study-ing ‘most likely’ or ‘least likely’ cases has often proved fruitful, according to Flyvbjerg.
In the book Architectural Research Methods, Linda Groat borrows a table from Egon Guba to discuss the principal differences between postpositivism and naturalism (Groat & Wang, 2002, p. 34). To a large extent, this dualism coincides with the polarisation between Yin’s and Stake’s case study ap-proaches. In an adapted version of Guba’s table, I place positivistic and her-meneutic in the header and draw from Yin’s and Stake’s quality standards (see Table 2).
METHODS · 33
Table 2. Validation principles according to different epistemological ap-proaches (drawing from Egon Guba in Groat & Wang, 2002).
Questions Positivistic Hermeneutic
Truth value Do presented results give a fair picture of the case in reality?
Internal validity clear argumentation (chain of evidence); try rival explana-tions
Credibilitylet interviewees review mate-rial; use multiple data sources
ApplicabilityHow to learn from the case?
External validity theory-led inquiry for ana-lytical generalisation
Transferabilitythick context descriptions for naturalistic generalisation
Consistency Is the investigation conducted in an ap-propriate way?
Reliabilitydocumentation of all research procedures (case study pro-tocol, case study data base); the belief is that a reliable study is replicable
Dependabilitydocumentation of all research procedures; even if each inves-tigation gives unique results, the instabilities should be pos-sible to track
NeutralityAre there any hidden agendas or biased in-terpretations?
Objectivityavoid bias or interference
Confirmability / transparency reflect on and explicate poten-tial bias or interference
There are certain commonalities between Yin’s and Stake’s ways of conduct-ing case study research. Both argue for the importance of triangulation, i.e. the use of multiple sources and collection techniques to collect as much data as possible. Both also advocate a high degree of transparency in the method-ology, whereby the researcher should reflect upon rival explanations and weaknesses in the material. The main differences are of epistemological char-acter, with Yin seeming to be more optimistic about the researcher’s possibil-ity to understand and explain ‘the truth’. Therefore, he is also more concerned with the technical procedures and strives towards a consistent scope and clear case boundaries. Stake, on the other side, dismisses claims of objectivity or absolute truth, and accordingly the procedures are more flexible and humble concerning a dynamic reality.
Considering my own ontological and epistemological points of departure, the more hermeneutic and relativistic approach is a natural choice rather than the positivistic one. However, Yin’s intelligible compilation of case study de-sign guidelines gives a great deal of useful input. Important points of depar-ture have been to strive to use different complementary data collection meth-ods to get as broad an insight as possible into the functions and outcomes of the processes, and to critically seek information from different groups of resi-dents and on different types of outcomes, positive as well as negative.
Case selection and case study design
The case selection aimed at finding an area where a yard with an active in-volvement process could be compared with a similar yard without tenants in-volved in the management. There were several places in Göteborg with at least two demographically and physically very similar yards/housing units with different situations regarding tenant involvement processes. Several of these also represented suburban and socio-economically disadvantaged (i.e. more or
34
less stigmatised) areas, among them the housing area called Angered Cen-trum, owned by the municipal housing company Poseidon. The rationale be-hind choosing Angered Centrum was that the division between the yards was clearer than in other places, and that I could study even more than two yards with different types of involvement processes. I also saw it as a benefit that one of the processes in Angered Centrum had a fairly long continuity (Sundling, 1999) and had been studied by another group of researchers some years ago (Bengtsson et al., 2003). In addition to this, I reckoned that the mix-ture of apartment types at each yard as an interesting feature of Angered Cen-trum. The area and the yards are described in Appendix H.
I chose to base the study on three main methods: (1) questionnaires to resi-dents; (2) structured observation of the contents of the yards and how they were used; and (3) semi-structured qualitative in-depth interviews with resi-dents and management staff. In addition to this, I have studied different documents to get an understanding of the area’s history and development. It has also been helpful to walk around and spend time in the area, and to talk to people outside the interview situations. I started the case study by meeting with some of the housing company employees. With their help, I selected four yards to study: One with an active formal ‘yard association’, one with a less active yard association, one with an informal garden group and one without any kind of resident involvement or neighbour collaboration (see Appendix H for more detailed descriptions of the yards). I then formulated a letter that the company sent to all households in the area, introducing myself and the study and requesting interviewees.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire (see Appendix E) served several purposes. One obvious aim was to collect direct and quantifiable information from the residents, and assumably from a broader representation of residents than I would reach through the interviews. The questionnaire also served as an additional infor-mation letter from me to the residents, where I again asked for volunteers for the interviews. Furthermore, distributing and collecting questionnaires be-came a ‘legitimate’ reason for me to walk around in the area, knock on doors and talk to residents.
The questionnaire form was designed to be simple and fast to fill in. I gave the questionnaire to all households at the four case study yards. I delivered several copies to each household to allow for individual answers from more than one person per family. This presented the possibility to get answers from children and youth, who I assumed would be under-represented among the respondents. I placed a code on the envelopes to keep track of which house-holds had answered. To protect the integrity of the informants, however, the coded envelopes were separated from the questionnaires as soon as I received them. Owing to the codes, I had the opportunity to give a reminder to house-holds who had not answered.
The response frequency rose to 35% of the households (69 of 195), and in addition I received twelve ‘extra’ questionnaires from the cases in which sev-eral household members participated individually. Thus, a total of 81 ques-tionnaires were handed in from the estimated 520 persons living at the four yards. Certainly, this number is not satisfactory for drawing statistically robust
METHODS · 35
conclusions. However, they provide a source for reflection, and the findings from the questionnaire can be compared to input from observations and in-terviews to contribute to an overall understanding of the situation.
In a comparison of the profile of the respondents with demographic statis-tics, the clearest differences are that women, particularly in the age group of 45-64 years, are overrepresented in the material while the youngest and oldest have replied only to a low extent (see Appendix F). Perhaps a bit surprising, considering the risk for language constraints, is that the share of respondents born in Sweden does not seem to be more than marginally higher than their representation in the area. Although reliable statistics from the area are not available, it could be assumed that people who have lived for a longer time in the area are highly over-represented (43% of the respondents have lived there for ten years or more).
When I walked around knocking on doors, I had the chance to meet many of the people who had chosen not to respond in the first round. Some reflec-tions can be made on the basis of these meetings, although it is difficult to draw general conclusions on possible sample biases. A minor group of the non-responders apparently did not understand much Swedish. However, as already concluded, there was no significant underrepresentation of immi-grants among respondents, and most of those I talked to who had declined to fill in the questionnaire obviously had no language difficulties. I did not notice any obvious gender or age patterns. Many of the people commented that they were not very concerned over the issues raised, which I find to be the most plausible reason for the relatively low response rate.
Observations
There were several reasons for me to use observation as a complementary data collection technique. I wanted to acquaint myself with the area and de-velop my own picture of how the yards looked and how they were used. I also believed my observations would contribute to a broad set of data, in which information from different sources could be compared. Another reason was that I planned to have a good deal of time to spend in the area between inter-views. Instead of simply using this time for spontaneous observations to deepen my insight qualitatively, I also wanted to find an appropriate method-ology to collect quantifiable observation data. The main parameters which could be of interest were who I saw, what they were doing, where and when:person, activity, place and time. I first prepared a protocol and planned for thirty-minute stays. However, it was difficult to make satisfactory observations using the complex four-dimensional protocol. Instead, I developed another technique I call momentary observations: Each time I entered a yard I noted data for all persons moving or standing within the yard area – estimated age and sex, type of activity and type of place. Using abbreviations made it possi-ble to do this quickly and discretely, which was good as I preferred to act like a ‘normal’ stranger passing by, thereby reducing the risk of affecting the yard life. I made a note of the time when I entered (as with date and weather), but did not have to make a timeline for each person like I did during the thirty-minute observations. A total of 62 momentary observations were recorded at different times between June 14 and July 14 (see Appendix G).
36
Interviews
While both the questionnaire and the observations gave me valuable data, I regard the interviews as the most important source for exploring the processes and possible causalities. To achieve a deep understanding of different resi-dents’ perspectives without missing any important themes, I used half-structured in-depth interviews, mainly based on the methodology described by Steinar Kvale (1997). I wanted to get as many different perspectives as possi-ble, and tried to find a broad sampling of interviewees regarding gender, age, ethnicity, type of apartment, time in the area, occupancy, and level of in-volvement. To identify a satisfactorily broad set of residents to interview, I had to request volunteers at meetings, in letters and when walking around in the area talking to people.
As can be seen in Appendix D, many of the interviewed residents were 40 to 64 years old and the majority lived in families with children, typically in row houses. The balance between the sexes among the interviewed residents is relatively even. When it comes to national origin, it is worth noting that the representation from countries outside Europe is quite high. However, most immigrants participating in the interviews had lived in Sweden for a long time and felt well acquainted with its language and traditions. Another point to raise is that the sample covers non-involved residents at all four yards as well as representatives from all present involvement processes.
I prepared the interviews through writing guides with themes and questions I wanted to cover (see Appendix C for an example). These were adapted to different groups of interviewees, namely non-involved residents, involved residents, youth, children, management staff, and management director. I con-tinuously updated the guides on the basis of my experiences from conducted interviews. I kept the guide in front of me during the interviews to be able to check and find new questions if necessary. Most of the time, the free conversa-tion form was enough to cover the themes sufficiently, but often in the end the guide helped me to find some missing parts. I also brought an aerial photo to facilitate the conversation. Most interviews lasted between one and two hours and took place at the interviewees’ homes, workplaces or in a tenants’ room used by one of the yard associations. In this form I conducted 14 interviews, three of which were with management employees and one was with a group of teenagers. In addition to this, I also conducted three shorter ‘spontaneous’ interviews, i.e. interviews that were not planned in advance but were recorded and analysed. In total, 20 hours of interview time have been coded. I had the support of a computer software program, which made it possible to code di-rectly in the audio files. I have followed the analytical procedure presented by Starrin et al. (1991), starting by working with ‘open coding’, i.e. without a pre-set structure – with new codes continuously being created from the empirical data. After a while, when it has matured, the open coding is replaced with a structured coding with a limited set of codes.
2.3. A post-reflection on methodology As described in the section about the Epistemology Tree, there are two ways to discover the trunk, i.e. two pathways from the empirical to the reconstruc-tion of the actual and real domains of reality. One is from the domain of the
METHODS · 37
leaves through academic research and intellectual analysis, and the other is from the underground roots through our unplanned and often unconscious, tacit knowledge production based on diverse life experiences. The epistemo-logical focus is normally on the first (‘leaf-wise’) type of knowledge produc-tion, but the second (‘root-wise’) type has also drawn scholarly attention. Of great significance for the interest in the role of tacit knowledge is Donald Schön’s book The Reflective Practitioner (1983). Schön aims to theorise and thereby legitimise what he calls the practitioner’s knowing-in-practice, which has a parallel in the ‘root-wise’, tacit learning according to the Epistemology Tree model. However, the distinction between ‘root-wise’ and ‘leaf-wise’ learning processes is perhaps not as clear as the model suggests. Schön em-phasises the importance of reflection-in-action, which leads to the recommen-dation that the practitioner actually may benefit from intellectualising her learning and developing strategies to optimise the learning outcomes of her practice.
Philosopher Paul K. Feyerabend has provoked many methodologists with his anarchistic view of science. In his seminal book, Against Method (1975), Feyerabend suggests (in a slightly ironical vein) that “anything goes” is the only methodological principle that does not inhibit progress in science4, i.e., we should follow our intuition and not be rigid regarding rules and proce-dures. Interestingly, his main example is the same as the one Thomas Kuhn (1962) used to explain how a paradigm shift takes place, namely how Galileo Galilei searched for proof for the heliocentric Copernicus model as a more reliable cosmology than the geocentric Ptolemaic model. While Kuhn focuses on Galilei’s persistent search for an alternative paradigm, satisfactorily solving the old paradigm’s many shortcomings, Feyerabend instead points out Gali-lei’s fundamentalist and ‘irrational’5 devotion to the heliocentric worldview. He argues that Galilei’s ‘irrationality’ – i.e. his attitude of making up assump-tions which are not in accordance with established theories, favouring results supporting his initial idea and generally ignoring weaknesses in his methods – was necessary to bring about the scientific revolution described by Kuhn as a paradigm shift (compare to discussion on page 22).
With a more rebellion approach, and perhaps a bit more ‘irrationality’ and courage, I could have chosen a methodology oriented more towards exploring the unknown and developing new concepts. On the other hand, this would have implied more risk of not reaching through as well as more exposure to deficits and weaknesses. And, interpreting Schön’s conclusions, learning by practice implies both a moment of intra-disciplinary well-anchored and even repetitive routines, and a moment of surprise and critical challenges which push for a breaking up of disciplinary borders and established frameworks.
4 In Farewell to Reason (1987, p.284), Feyerabend reflects on his readers’ different interpreta-tions of the “anything goes” principle. His intention was not to suggest a real principle, but rather a ‘principle’ of avoiding dogmatic principles. This reminds me of a paradoxical saying of my own that I liked to use as a college student: ‘By principle I have no principles’. 5 Feyerabend himself uses apostrophes to mark that it is irrational only in relation to tradi-tional rationality theorists’ understanding of rationality.
38
RESULTS ANDDISCUSSION
This chapter aims to give a more comprehensive overview of the results pre-sented in the papers, but also to take the discussion one step further and move towards a synthesis of the different theoretical and empirical inquiries under-taken. In Section 3.1, the study object is introduced more thoroughly. Thereaf-ter, in Section 3.2, theoretical concepts and frameworks are elaborated, with a point of departure in the overarching vision of sustainable development. The findings on potential outcomes of tenant involvement in open space manage-ment are presented in Section 3.3. Finally, Section 3.4 discusses a number of factors which can support or hinder the initiation and institutionalisation of involvement processes.
3.1. What is tenant involvement in open space management? As described in the introductory chapter, three thematic entrances lead to the identification of tenant involvement in open space management as an interest-ing phenomenon to study. However, when the research project started, nei-ther the terminology nor the exact framing of the study object was clear. There was also very little information from previous studies about how com-mon these types of processes are, where they take place, and how they are organised. Section 3.1.1 discusses the contextual and conceptual delimitations of the study object. Thereafter, a brief historical background of the phenome-non is provided in Section 3.1.2. The last section, 3.1.3, gives an overview of the findings regarding the occurrence and forms of tenant involvement in open space management.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 39
3.1.1. Framing and naming of the study object
The lengthy term ‘tenant involvement in open space management’ was not an obvious choice. The aim was to be as precise as possible about what it refers to. Other terms have been tried and a number of considerations made in the combined process of naming and framing the study object. Some of these will be reflected on here, in connection to a discussion on the development of ty-pologies and definitions presented in the papers.
The place context – residential yards of Swedish rental housing areas
The place context of the study, as mentioned on page 12, is the ‘residential yards’ of Swedish rental housing areas. ‘Residential yard’ is a translation of the Swedish word bostadsgård, which is commonly used and typically associ-ated with precisely the type of spaces treated here: more or less enclosed semi-public open green spaces adjacent to one or several apartment blocks. How-ever, the English term residential yard may also be associated with the front and back yards of private villas and therefore needs to be contextualised. Some alternative expressions have also been tried. My colleague Therese Lindgren has used ‘estate grounds’ in one paper (Lindgren, 2005), and in ear-lier phases of the project (see paper I; Castell, 2005) I used the term ‘neighbourhood space’. I later shifted to using the more neutral and general term ‘open space’. Residential yard is used as a complementary term when I want to be more specific regarding the setting.
The reasons for limiting the study to rental housing areas are that the ten-ant–landlord relationship is of interest and that the debates about marginalisa-tion in Swedish housing areas entirely concern rental houses. I also considered including cooperative housing (tenant-owner associations), which is a com-mon tenure form in Sweden and is often not distinguishable from rental hous-ing by merely looking at the physical form of houses and yards. The discussion on self-management concerns cooperative housing as well as rental housing, as most tenant-owner associations choose to hire professionals for their open space management. However, in cooperative housing the tenants already have formal control over the decisions. Moreover, limiting the discussion to rental housing was a way to make a comprehensive inventory of involvement proc-esses more manageable. Using tenant involvement instead of resident in-volvement is just a way to stress that the context is rental housing areas.
The scope could also have been limited more, e.g. to marginalised housing areas, which is a key interest in the project. One reason for not making such a limitation is the problems connected to defining marginalisation. First of all, there are no natural criteria for such a definition, as marginalisation stems from a complex and dynamic combination of different factors that are often hard to measure. In addition, pointing out an area as marginalised contributes to its stigma, a dilemma that is sometimes discussed among researchers. An-other reason for including all rental housing is that it enables a search for dif-ferences between different types of areas. After all, particular attention is given to marginalised housing areas, which are the focus in Paper V.
The choice to limit the study to open spaces could also be questioned. There are many other types of initiatives to study for anyone interested in social mobilisation in rental housing areas. However, one of the points of de-
40
parture was to study which function the shared open spaces may have for such initiatives.
In some places I use the phrase ‘living environments’, which is supposed to represent people’s everyday life settings, or, as it is a residential context, the physical and social features of the places surrounding their dwelling. The resi-dential yards constitute an important part of the living environment for many, but important is also how they are used and how social interaction takes place there. The role of residential yards as semi-public neighbourhood territories for the residents is further discussed in Thematic paper D, while the context of Swedish rental housing as well as the debates on segregation and marginalisa-tion are addressed in Thematic paper E.
The management perspective
The English word ‘management’ actually has a broader scope than what is appropriate here. When set in the context of open spaces in a housing area and the involvement of tenants, however, I hope the term can be understood as intended: referring to the practical work of taking care of existing open spaces. An alternative term would be ‘maintenance’, which I find too narrow. Besides what is normally understood as maintenance – grass mowing, hedge trimming, weeding, litter collecting, etc. – I here include activities such as planning, redesigning, planting trees, laying paving stones, and building fences in the notion of open space management.
When discussing sustainable urban development, the focus is often on newdevelopments, i.e. construction of new buildings and infrastructures. Some-times the emphasis is on redevelopment of existing urban structures, which is also a matter of large financial investments. This project instead deals with what can be done in the management phase, i.e. how existing housing areas can be improved without new financial investments. As discussed in Thematic paper D, open spaces in particular are largely shaped by use and maintenance, i.e. in the management phase rather than the development phase. Arguably, the management perspective is ofen neglected both in research and housing policy.
The concept of tenant involvement
The terms ‘involvement’ and ‘participation’ are often used interchangeably in studies of things such as citizens participating in urban planning, patients dia-loguing with their medical doctors, service consumers influencing the service production, or residents managing shared spaces. In the literature, ‘ten-ant/resident participation’ is a more common notion than ‘tenant/resident in-volvement’ and I have not found any clear indications of how the connotations of the two terms differ. However, etymologically they are essentially different: The Latin involv re means to wrap up or obscure, while particip re means to share in or make known (Oxford English Dictionary, 2009). I have chosen to primarily use involvement due to some linguistic differences. First, participat-ing appears to be more temporarily connected to events, while being involved is more of a role you take on. Hence, I find it reasonable to say that if a person participates on a single planting day, this does not necessarily mean that she is involved (at least, she does not necessarily belong to the group of those who are actively involved). Second, it also seems as if involvement includes more
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 41
of an emotional engagement – not merely taking part in activities. The direct social and therapeutical effects of activating body and mind in open space management can more readily be discussed in terms of outcomes of involve-ment than of participation. Third, the notion of participation, following a long tradition of analysing the citizens’ role in decision-making, often works on the supposition that there is a given ‘space’ for decision-making from which ‘grassroots’ may be excluded or in which they may participate to different de-grees. Participating grassroots can, so to speak, obtain access to the space of decision-making. This power dimension also is present in the processes stud-ied here, but tenant involvement in open space management is not typically about gaining control over the housing company’s decision-making. As dis-cussed in Thematic paper C, the involvement processes often open up newspaces of decision-making, which give involved tenants the power to influence their living environments in a more direct way than through gaining influence over existing decision-making processes.
Other expressions found in the literature are ‘tenant management’, ‘resi-dent management’, and the closely related term ‘self-management’. The latter can be directly translated to the Swedish självförvaltning, which is actually a popular notion for the phenomenon studied. As explained in Papers I and II, and informed by Bengtsson et al. (2003, pp. 20-22), I use the term self-management for involvement processes in which the tenants (or other user groups) by contract have taken over a significant part of the housing com-pany’s (or other service provider’s) management tasks (which is also how the term is used in, e.g., Modh, 1988; Alfredsson & Cars, 1996; Swedish Govern-ment, 1997; Aalbers, 2002; Delshammar, 2005). Thereby, self-management – or more precisely: tenant management – is a subset of tenant involvement in management.
Collective gardening – for an international outlook
In Paper V the term ‘collective gardening’ is developed and applied, referring to a wider set of participative open space management processes. The reason for introducing this broader concept is to be able to place my own studies of tenant involvement in open space management in relation to related processes in other contexts where citizens cooperate on a voluntary basis to take care of shared open green spaces in their home environments. Tenant involvement in open space management can thus be seen as a subset of collective gardening, although there is also ‘non-collective’ tenant involvement (see Figure 11).
Figure 11. Two key concepts in the project
COLLECTIVE GARDENING
TENANT INVOLVEMENT IN OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT
42
The most widely used English term for collective gardening in the literature is community gardening. There are many movements and discussions and a great deal of information connected to the community garden notion, especially in the US and other English-speaking countries. Community gardening is a broad notion, encompassing a variety of different kinds of processes. The gar-dening component is often central in the debate on community gardens, often more so than the community component. However, the definitions may differ as the notion has been widely used. According to Laura J. Lawson (2005, p. 206), the general meaning of the term community garden was transformed during the 1970s, from a specific type of garden divided into individual allot-ments, to any urban garden maintained by a group of residents or volunteers, often associated with grassroots activism reclaiming community values and open green space in deteriorating urban neighbourhoods. Mary Beth Pudup (2008) argues that the emphasis today, as compared to the grassroots mobili-sation-oriented community garden movements of the 1970s and 1980s, is more on individual change and self-actualisation: “Change in persons through their individual plant cultivation takes precedence over any transformation that might ensue from people working with and/or beside other people” (p. 1230). Pudup prefers to use the notion “organized garden project” instead of com-munity gardening, aiming at more prosaically focussing on the “building of organizations and discourses and how they become part of society’s response to social, economic and political emergency” (p. 1232).
As community gardening is a term used mainly in English-speaking coun-tries, and as its meanings and applicability to tenant involvement in open space management are somewhat unclear, I searched for an alternative con-cept. Emphasising the social interaction in the processes – that they are collec-tive efforts to create collective goods – I found collective gardening a more appropriate notion. While community gardening is the dominant term in the literature, it can be argued that collective gardening more univocally describes what it is about: a group of people voluntarily and collectively involved in the management of a garden. It may refer to, e.g., parents involved in the mainte-nance of a school yard, club members arranging the grounds of their premises, prisoners cultivating a patch behind the bars, or, most typically, a group of residents involved in managing the open green spaces in their neighbourhood.
An alternative to collective gardening is collective (or participative) open space management, which would be more in line with the terminology used in my previous papers. Arguments for collective gardening are that it makes a much more convenient notion, it can more easily be associated with commu-nity gardening, and it emphasises the aspect of working with living material – plants and soil – which is actually an important aspect in much of the literature on community gardening.
Table 3 presents a typology of five broad categories of collective gardening cases in the reviewed literature. The five categories may partly overlap and do not cover all possible collective gardening processes, but they do give a fair overview of which types of cases have been described. Tenant involvement in open space management belongs to the category of resident-managed estate grounds.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 43
Table 3. A proposed typology of collective gardening cases presented in the reviewed literature
Type Brief description Examples
Neighbour-hood communitygardens
A group of neighbours manage a garden in their neighbourhood, with or without formal contracts. More or less public accessibility.
Most of the in-depth stud-ied US cases
Institutionalgardens
Gardens belonging to an institution with a specific purpose, maintained and used by a specific category of users, e.g., school gardens, therapy gardens, senior house gardens, prison gardens, etc.
Many of the cases de-scribed in the US
Citizen-managedpublic parks
A group of citizens are contracted by the municipality to manage a public open space.
Many of the Utrecht cases; some Swedish cases
Resident-managedestategrounds
Residents manage the shared open spaces on their housing estate. In-cludes multi-family housing areas with rental apartments or coopera-tively owned.
Most of the Swedish cases; the Estate Management Boards in the UK
Allotmentgardens
Areas mainly consisting of individu-ally tended garden lots (and not belonging to any of the categories mentioned above), intended primar-ily for flower, herb or vegetable cul-tivation.
The public housing estate gardens in Toronto; many community gardens have allotments as a compo-nent; colony gardens of Sweden, although they are not studied here
3.1.2. A retrospect
Retrospects are always enlightening. When the historical development of a phenomenon is traced, a richer understanding of its current roles and func-tions is enhanced. There is no aim here, however, to conduct a thorough and in-depth historical analysis of the development of tenant involvement in open space management or other forms of collective gardening. The intent is rather to give the reader a brief introduction and place current cases in a broader societal context.
Current collective gardening responds to a situation in which (1) the set-tlement structure is dense enough and organised in a way that urban dwellers normally have no private gardens, and (2) the lack of social cohesion and community spirit is a main issue in many urban neighbourhoods. For these two reasons, collective action in itself is an important dimension of the gar-dening initiatives. Searching the roots, however, reveals less dense and less socially fragmented contexts in which the gardening itself was the ultimate dimension. Hence, it is necessary to widen the scope to all kinds of urban gar-dening, in accordance with Lawson (2005).
44
Urban gardening during industrialisation and modernisation
As pointed out by Charlotte Horgby and Lena Jarlöv (1991) in their review of the development of Swedish “apartment gardens”, gardening was historically a natural component of the cities. Most citizens in the pre-industrial cities cul-tivated vegetables in backyards and small gardens outside the city walls. These gardens were important food supplements, but, as Horgby and Jarlöv note, they were also places for children’s play and social activities. When society became industrialised, it did not imply a direct break with the urban gardening tradition. Early multifamily houses, constructed as dwellings for, e.g., workers at factories or for the national railway agency, were provided with gardens for each household. However, an intensified urbanisation led to densification in backyards as well as garden lots on the cities’ outskirts. At the beginning of the 20th century, gardening was unusual in big cities, judging from a statement by Anna Lindhagen, one of the key founders of the Swedish colony garden movement. Her commitment to allotment gardening started when she saw a colony garden during a visit to Copenhagen in 1903 (Anna Lindhagen, quoted in Horgby & Jarlöv, 1991, p. 15): “Those were metropolitan men who walked around tending and maintaining small plots of land! It was as if one was visit-ing the countryside…”
While Horgby and Jarlöv trace the inspiration of modern Swedish garden movements to 19th-century urban allotment garden movements in Denmark and Germany, Sam B. Warner (1987) searches for the roots of the present American community gardening movement in England at the time of indus-trialisation in the 18th century. He asserts that post-industrial community gar-dening was born there, as a response to the Enclosure Acts, which took away the possibility for many landless people to grow food products for their subsis-tence. Charitable organisations were founded to help the landless, through promoting the establishment of family garden allotments in the villages as the old commons had been privatised. According to Warner, these were the first ancestors of today’s community gardens. Despite demeaning regulations and hard conditions, the desire for land to cultivate was strong enough to establish a quarter of a million garden allotments by the 1870s in England, and they played an important role during the devastating crop failures when millions were starving (Warner, 1987). Some decades later, the gardens gained official recognition. A British governmental statute from 1907 called upon the local municipalities to set up allotment gardens for the ‘labouring population’, which became the legal basis for the extensive allotment system of today. Ac-cording to Warner, the allotment gardening spread from England to other countries in Northern Europe. However, it may well have developed inde-pendently in different places, which fits better with Horgby and Jarlöv’s de-scription of parallel allotment garden movements in Germany.
The poor living conditions in the industrialised, dense cities were addressed through requirements for improved infrastructures for water and sanitation, but also through claims of access to parks and gardens, which became an im-portant element in different modernisation movements. There were many entrances to the renewed interest in gardening in industrialised cities. During the second part of the 19th century, many Swedes chose to emigrate to North America in hopes for a better life, and one practical reason for industrial lead-ers and municipal authorities to support the pioneering Swedish allotment garden programmes was to give them the opportunity to stay (Horgby & Jar-löv, 1991). In Germany, one of the pioneering allotment garden movements
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 45
emphasised children’s need of healthy environments (Horgby & Jarlöv, 1991). In England, the official sanctioning of the garden movements emphasising food security were underpinned by an interest in controlling the poor. It also went hand in hand with other ‘healthy living’ movements like sobriety and sports (Warner, 1987, p. 12).
Urban gardening was a fundament in the philosophy behind the garden city movement, emerging in England during the shift between the 19th and 20th
centuries and spreading in Sweden during the 1910s and 1920s (see, e.g., Råd-berg, 1994). However, when Functionalism movement broke through, it brought an essentially different view on urban green space into architecture and urban planning discourse. Actually, the term ‘green space’ itself is inher-ently connected to this new rationalistic urban thinking (see, e.g., Linn, 1974/1989, p. 82). In the functionalist city, there are no gardens. Le Corbusier himself argued that gardening is work and not a proper activity for modern urban people (noted in Horgby & Jarlöv, 1991). Rather than small, intense gardens, reminiscent of rural societies, functionalism promoted large-scale open spaces and park landscapes. According to Horgby and Jarlöv, the pri-mary function was to provide nice views.
Gardening as a response to urban crises – urban gardening and commu-nity gardening in the US
A specific historiography has begun to emerge around the community garden movements in the US. Special attention to this is motivated here by the re-viewed literature being dominated by case studies on North American com-munity gardens. The most extensive compilation of North American commu-nity garden history has been done by Lawson (2005). Her primary study ob-jects have been funding and support programmes of urban gardening in the US, which first began to appear in the late 19th century. The chronological disposition of the book illustrates how urban gardening has developed over the past century, in close correspondence to a model suggested by Thomas J. Bassett (1979); see Table 4.
Lawson (2005) discusses the history of urban garden movements in three main periods. In the first period, from the late 19th century to the first World War, the urban gardening programmes responded to the social effects of in-dustrialisation and urbanisation. During the second period, the two World Wars and the Great Depression constituted major challenges to society and urban gardening was again a strategy to ameliorate some of the problems (see Figure 12). The third period is more diffuse than the second, starting with an ‘interlude’ during a couple of decades of booming economy in the absence of urban or food crises. During these years, the urban gardening culture was re-localised to the private suburban villa estates. When the new community gar-dening movement emerged around 1970, it was more of a grassroots move-ment than during earlier periods, typically even in opposition to local authori-ties. Inhabitants of poor urban neighbourhoods, notably in New York City, planted gardens on vacant lots, partly as a reaction to increasing food prices. However, it became known as a broad and popular movement for city green-ing and community building. According to Lawson’s model and the common historiography (see, e.g., Englander, 2001; Kurtz, 2001; Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2004; Treebranch Network, n.d.), this was the beginning of the cur-rent community garden movements in the US.
46
Figure 12. Two propaganda posters from different garden campaigns in the US around the time of the end of World War I.6
The community garden movement of New York City has become a strong symbol not only for the current community garden movement in the US, but for similar movements around the world. References to New York City com-munity gardens can be found in reports from, e.g., Canada (MacNair, 2002), Australia (Bartolomei et al., 2003), Germany (Rosol, 2005), Spain (Domene & Saurí, 2007) and Sweden (Larsson, 2005). Organisations like the Green Guerillas, founded 1973 by Liz Christy on Manhattan, worked to support and protect the inner-city community gardens and mobilise public opinion. In the late 1970s, the city council of New York City gave in to the protests and launched Operation GreenThumb to support the community gardening movement. Another wave of protests arose in the late 1990s when the city council decided to sell a hundred community garden lots at auction, aiming to provide opportunities for new housing developments (see, e.g., Smith & Kurtz, 2003; Elder, 2005). Although the events in New York City may have had a significant symbolic value for community gardening worldwide, collec-tive gardening movements have developed differently in other places. The US community garden movement of today is multi-form and diverse, which is often emphasised (see, e.g., ACGA, 1998; Parks & People Foundation, 2000; Englander, 2001).
6 To the left: Poster from the War Garden Committee of the Illinois State Council of De-fence, drawn by J. N. Dingo and engraved by the Barnes-Crosby Company, 1918 (Courtesy of the Library of Congress, photo no. LC-USZC4-7869). To the right: Poster by Frank V. Dumond produced by the National War Garden Commis-sion, circa 1917-1919 (Courtesy of the National Archives, photo no. NWDNS-4-P-147). Both posters are republished in Lawson, 2005.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 47
Table 4. Urban garden movements in the US (drawing from Lawson, 2005; Pudup, 2008)
Period Garden programmes Time Crisis/emergency
Vacant-lot cultivation associa-tions
1894-1917 Food crises and urban poverty
The school garden movement 1900-1920 Character formation of children
I
Civic garden movements 1905-1920 Urban beautification
‘Liberty gardens’ – The war garden campaign
1917-1920 World War I
‘Relief gardens’ 1930-1939 Great Depression
II
‘Victory gardens’ 1941-1945 World War II
[interlude] [1945-1970] [Private villa gardening]
Community gardens 1970s and 1980s
Urban social movements
III
Diverse urban garden pro-grammes
1990s on-wards
Community development
Colony gardening and tenant-managed yards in Sweden
There are many similarities between the histories of Swedish and North American urban gardening, but there are also differences. In Sweden, as in many North European countries, an allotment garden movement was estab-lished around the shift between the 19th and 20th centuries and continues to-day. Some of the allotment garden colonies function as important social nodes in local communities and some focus on collective action. However, more typically, their main role is to provide private gardens to people living in apartments. According to Lena Boström (2007) there are about 42,000 colony garden owners in Sweden today, which corresponds to about two per cent of Swedish households living in multi-family houses. There are also colony gar-dens in central parts of the larger cities. This may be one reason why ‘squatter gardens’ are not a well-known phenomenon in Sweden. Nevertheless, it is possible to find informal plantations in the cities, established by citizens on property that does not belong to them (see, e.g., Stehn, 2008). When it comes to neighbourhood revitalisation, though, the closest comparison to the New York City community gardening movement in Sweden would rather be the formal and informal processes by which multi-family house residents are in-volved in gardening on their semi-public estate grounds.
During the 1970s, a growing interest emerged among researchers and ten-ant movements in grassroots involvement and citizen influence in local com-munity development. The socio-economic backlash in the new suburbs (see Thematic paper E) contributed to fuelling this interest, and many initiatives were taken to better involve residents in planning and design. Often, the citi-zen participation movements were influenced by socialist ideologies and co-operative ideals. In the periphery, criticism has been voiced since the 1970s regarding the roles of architects and planners in mainstream practice, urging
48
for a more socially sensitive, place-connected and responsive approach (see, e.g., Olivegren, 1975; Ödmann, 1986; Kristensson, 1994; Berglund, 1996; Klarqvist & Thiberg, 2003). The tenant movement in Sweden, represented by the Union of Tenants, strived for increased tenant influence as one core issue, i.e. increased possibilities for tenants to influence decisions affecting their lo-cal living conditions..
Two milestones in the development of formal tenant involvement processes are the cooperative movement in Eriksbo, Göteborg, and the self-management initiative in Holma, Malmö, both briefly presented in Papers I and V. These initiatives have inspired municipal housing companies as well as tenant groups, and towards the late 1990s self-management was a fairly well-known concept in regard to open space management in rental housing areas.
Meanwhile, gardening as a hobby and culture had become more and more popular in Sweden, and projects to inspire and support groups of residents who wanted to develop inner-city yards into lush gardens started in both Stockholm and Göteborg (Grönskande levande gårdar, 2002; Herrnsdorf, 2005). In recent years a remarkable interest in different forms of urban gar-dening has suddenly emerged in Sweden, combining environmental and social concerns (see, e.g., Schmidtbauer, 2008; Wennberg, 2008; Asp, 2009; Gottberg, 2009; Lindgren, 2009; Queiroz, 2009; Söderberg, 2009; Hörnstein, 2010).
3.1.3. Where and how does it take place?
As found through the overview survey, there are around 30 formal processes of tenant involvement in open space management spread across the city of Göteborg. All in all, about two per cent of the rental housing stock in the city have yards which are partly or fully managed by these groups of tenants. As discussed in Paper II, these figures may not be representative of Sweden as a whole. Compared to studies from other parts of the country, tenant involve-ment in open space management appears to be most common in areas owned by larger public housing companies, such as MKB in Malmö (Berglund et al., 1995; Alfredsson & Cars, 1996) and Familjebostäder in Stockholm (Cele, 2002). However, there are also examples of involvement processes among smaller public housing companies (see Berglund et al., 1995) and private land-lords (see Edlund et al., 2001; Cele, 2002). Lindgren’s parallel survey of public housing companies in the Skåne region (see Paper III) confirms that formal-ised tenant involvement processes typically occur within the largest compa-nies, although Staffanstorpshus (owning only about 1,000 apartments) is an exception. At a seminar7 attended by representatives of a number of public housing companies, it was established that Staffanstorpshus is unique with almost all open space management taken care of by tenants. When I con-ducted a brief survey in three small- to medium-sized municipalities in west-ern Sweden, to identify possible case study areas, only 1 of 20 housing compa-nies had any experience of formalised tenant involvement. Many of the com-panies, however – both public and private, larger and smaller – told of infor-mal garden groups and unsettled involvement initiatives.
7 Research project seminar in Hovdala, Hässleholm, 10 February, 2009.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 49
Which types of areas?
It was interesting to discover that formalised involvement processes took place in such widely different types of areas, regarding geographical location, spatial layout and demographic conditions. Many of the identified areas, how-ever, could be characterised as either the ‘well-educated middle-class’ or the ‘working-class suburb’ type, as discussed in Paper II; see also Figure 13 below:
Figure 13. Diagrammes showing different characteristics of the housing areas with formalised tenant involvement processes in Göteborg. The figure is a popularisation of selected parts of Table 1 in Paper II, aiming to highlight the two area types. It could be noted that the unique profile of area 16 is due to its domination by a housing unit for the elderly. It should also be noted that the census statistics are normally based on larger areas than the areas of the involvement processes (see discussion on this in Paper II), and finally that the city’s averages (marked with x) refer to all tenure forms, not just rental housing areas.
50
The first type refers to areas less than five km from the centre and often built as closed courtyards in the 1930s or earlier. In these areas there are generally fewer immigrants and more people with academic degrees than the city’s av-erage. The second type refers to areas at a distance of 5-13 km from the city centre built during the 1960s or 1970s, typically with slab blocks forming semi-closed yards. In these areas, there is generally a relatively high proportion of children, immigrants and unemployed, to mention some of the characteristics found in census statistics.
Although each local area faces its own place-specific problems and has a unique set of resources, it could be assumed that there are some similarities in the situations of the described type I areas, which differ on a general basis from the situations in type II areas. Consequently, it could also be assumed that there are general differences between the two types of areas in why and how tenants become involved in open space management. However, there is little indication of such general differences in the data from the survey. If the involvement processes in the two types of areas are compared, it appears that more ‘advanced’ forms (notably self-management with own budget) are more common in the first type. On the other hand, this can also be connected to the different approaches to involvement processes applied by the housing compa-nies. The largest company, which owns relatively few houses in the old central areas of the city but is dominant in the suburbs, primarily encourages ar-rangements with garden groups and self-management without own budget. After all, the division into two distinguishable ‘types of areas’ is an abstract simplification and it is clear from the findings of the survey that tenant in-volvement in open space management occurs in a many other types of areas as well.
The cases reviewed in the literature represent an even much broader range of settings, as already discussed above (see, e.g., Table 3). The analyses in Pa-per V are primarily based on 14 of the reviewed texts, which deal with settings that could be characterised as ‘deprived urban areas’. Some of these areas, also in countries other than Sweden, are large-scale publicly owned rental housing areas from the 1960s and 1970s (e.g. Bartolomei et al., 2003; Baker, 2004). Others are low-income neighbourhoods with private apartments or even single-family houses (e.g. Severson, 1990; Glover, 2003).
Further below, in Section 3.4.1, the discussion on area conditions continues, regarding factors which can support or hinder the establishment of involve-ment processes.
Who becomes involved and why?
From the overview study in Göteborg it can be concluded that there are often about 5-10 households actively involved in the processes; an average of be-tween 5 and 15 per cent of the residents (see Paper III). Besides some self-management processes with a high level of autonomy, the vast majority of residents on each yard are not involved in the management. Previous studies discuss average involvement rates of about ten per cent (Uggla, 1993) down to as little as one per cent (Skidmore, Bound & Lownsbrough, 2006).
It is probably difficult to find a general pattern regarding which types of persons become involved. It has been discussed that women (Bengtsson et al., 2003), families with small children (Uggla, 1993) and the elderly (Delsham-
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 51
mar, 2005) are over-represented, and that immigrants are under-represented but are more likely to be involved in open space management than in more traditional community work (Bengtsson et al., 2003). The case study indicates that the core group is likely to consist of individuals who were already active before the involvement process started, and that there is a reciprocal connec-tion between neighbour togetherness and involvement activity (see Paper IV).
One way of addressing the question of who becomes involved is also to in-vestigate the reasons for involvement. Soidre-Brink (1987, p. 140, see also Bengtsson, Svensson & Uggla, 1997, p.22) has discussed three types of com-mon interests around which residents in a housing area may have reasons to organise: (a) They have a common position on the housing market; (b) They have common interests concerning the living conditions in the housing area; and (c) They have common goods in connection to the residential area – communications, commercial and social services, etc. Especially the second type of common interest seems to be of importance for tenant involvement in open space management, as the possibility to improve the physical environ-ment in the area has been recognised as a core incentive for involvement (see below).
With a rationalistic approach, the point of departure is that actions are per-formed by individuals when they believe they will win something from it, i.e. that there is a rational choice behind the action. The extent to which this ra-tionality is based on conscious, reflective and correctly calculated cost-benefit assessments can be discussed. With reference to Herbert Simon and Jon El-ster, Bengtson, Svensson and Uggla (2000, p. 21) promote a more open and relativistic rationality theory than the classical economist theory about homo oeconomicus. In their analyses of incentives for individuals’ participation in collective processes in residential areas, they have used Elster’s model with three ideal types of social cooperation norms: (1) everyday Kantianism, which means that participation is viewed as the right thing to do and that one should be a good model even if others are not engaging; (2) utilitarism, which means that the expected results per se are the motive; and (3) the norm of fairness,which means participation is conditioned by engagement from others. Accord-ing to their empirical findings, utilitarian norms constitute the most common incentives for collective action in residential areas, which was also confirmed in the evaluation of Poseidon’s self-management initiative8 (Bengtsson, Svens-son & Uggla, 2000, p. 173; Bengtsson et al., 2003, p. 243). Also according to Glover (2004, p.151), the impulse to improve the aesthetics of the neighbour-hood is a key motive for many to engage.
Tim Delshammar (2005) defines four categories of incentives for citizens to participate in open space management, of which at least the first two are clearly utilitarian (Delshammar, 2005, pp. 130-131): (1) the status and amenity incentive, aiming at improving and revitalising the physical environment to make it more attractive as a living environment and give the area a higher status; (2) the function and accessibility incentive, aiming at creating new op-portunities, e.g. through preparing land for cultivation or through arranging a place for recreation; (3) the creativity and self-actualisation incentive, aiming at
8 Poseidon is the largest housing company in Göteborg. Since the late 1990s, they haverun the project Local Democracy and Self-management in collaboration with the Union of Ten-ants. More information is provided in Papers I and II.
52
one’s own personal development through the garden work or the process of collective action; and (4) the symbolic action incentive, when participation is not aiming at direct tangible results but is instead a way to relate to the place and its history.
Delshammar emphasises that different incentives are usually intertwined, so that there are commonly more than one represented. There is also often a shift from one to another. For example, if the initial incentive for a person to become involved was to make functional and tangible improvements in the physical environment, during the process it may shift towards a higher interest in the social exchange. Exactly this shift, from utilitarian ‘neighbourhood im-provement’ to ‘social exchange’ incentives, seems typical of several of the cases described in the literature. The importance of both ‘neighbourhood im-provement’ and ‘social exchange’ incentives has also been confirmed in my own studies in Göteborg.
One aspect of who becomes involved is the issue of dependence on a few real enthusiasts9. Especially Swedish studies have focussed on this issue. Ug-gla’s literature review of grassroots engagement in rental housing areas shows that it seems almost inextricable that the workload is very unequally distrib-uted among the participants. Many times, a core group is comprised of some who wholeheartedly indulge in the work, while “the majority of the residents choose […] the comfortable state of passivity” (Uggla, 1993, p. 27). Some-times, the real enthusiasts are represented as heroes. “One person’s commit-ment and courage has brought the yard out of the darkness!” is an example of how a collective gardening process can be summarised (Grönskande levande gårdar, 2002). In a postscript to a study of well-functioning residential yards, Sten Göransson and Mats Lieberg reflect on the fact that on each yard there were real enthusiasts – “some industrious persons with the talent of mobilising others” (in Torseke Hulthén, 2000, p. 90). Göransson and Lieberg argue that too little emphasis is devoted to real enthusiasts and their roles, both in re-search and in practice.
Although real enthusiasts can be represented as heroes in many cases, they also represent problems. The most typical problem is the risk of failure if the process comes to be dependent on one or a few individuals (Bengtsson et al., 2003). Delshammar (2005, p. 127) warns of the risk that real enthusiasts can make involvement processes intensive but ephemeral. Sofia Cele (2002, p. 51) points at two risks posed by real enthusiasts: One is that they run out of en-ergy because they engage too intensively; the other is that they inhibit others’ engagement. Many narratives bear witness to the difficult situation of only some real enthusiasts carrying on the process, cultivating a resignation or sometimes even bitterness towards the passive neighbours who enjoy the benefits of the gardening without sharing the burden. “Yeah, right here it’s just me […] That’s why I call it self-management”, as one involved resident ironically explains (Bengtsson et al., 2003, p.141). In my own inquiries in Göteborg, real enthusiasts were described mainly in positive terms, as signifi-cant catalysts of engagement and social networking. However, it was clear that
9 In Swedish, the term eldsjäl is used, which literally translates into ‘fire soul’. However, the meaning is much less dramatic than what could perhaps be expected – approximately ‘one with a burning interest in something’, normally in a positive sense with connotations of admi-ration.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 53
the continuation of an involvement process is vulnerable when it is primarily based on one person’s strong commitment.
Who becomes involved and why are important questions for understanding where and how involvement processes may occur. On the other hand, it seems to be hard to find any general answers, as each local process has its own spe-cific conditions. On page 84, the possible impact of the demographic settings is discussed, which connects to the question of who is likely to become involved. The incentives for being involved must also be seen in regard to the social dynamics developing among the involved and non-involved neighbours.
Forms of involvement
As described above, the overview survey and case study conducted in Göte-borg looked specifically into involvement processes concerning practical man-agement work of residential yards in rental housing areas, characterised as col-lective, and having some kind of formal management agreement (see also Pa-per I). It is also acknowledged that there are involvement processes which only concern redesigning and planning; which take place in other types of set-tings, such as municipal parks, schoolyards, or yards in cooperative housing areas; which are non-collective, run by a single individual or household; or which are informal. Papers I and II present models of how the studied in-volvement processes can be categorised in regard to different parametres, emphasising the level of autonomy vis-à-vis the landlord and the range of re-sponsibilities undertaken. Some typical organisational arrangements are also presented. The variety of organisational arrangements (or ‘involvement forms’) covered in the international literature review is more diverse, ranging from informal groups of residents illegally occupying derelict lots to projects initiated and controlled by central authorities.
The differences in outcome depending on forms of involvement were one of the key aspects I originally intended to study. However, I found it hard to draw strong conclusions from the limited material, owing to the difficulties in drawing stringent comparisons between highly diverse settings. The signifi-cance of different organisational factors for the establishment and continua-tion of involvement processes is further discussed on page 86.
3.2. Theoretical inquiries and conceptual frameworksAs described in the introduction, I view the exploration, reinterpretation and elaboration of theory as an important part of the project, which can be seen as a set of inquiries parallel to but also intertwined with the empirical inquiries (see Figure 7). The results of the theoretical inquiries are largely presented in the thematic papers. The aim of this section is to introduce the most important conceptual frameworks developed in the papers and to link them to the study object. It can be seen as a summary of the much more extensive discussions in Thematic papers A-D, although many related issues covered in these papers are not mentioned here. The structure also follows the overall disposition of these four thematic papers. It begins with a section (3.2.1) in which the con-cept of sustainable development is analysed on a general basis as well as in the
54
context of the study. The following three sections represent the three theoreti-cal themes or perspectives outlined in the introduction (see Figures 6 and 7). The first theme (in Section 3.2.2) deals with models to explain and analyse social change in society and social structures in the local community. Thereaf-ter (in Section 3.2.3), two perspectives on participation are discussed, both of which can also be connected to the concept of self-organisation. In the final section (3.2.4), the role of the place is discussed, emphasising the semi-public character of residential yards and territorial conflicts.
3.2.1. Sustainable development: life quality and robustness
Thematic paper A presents sustainable development as a broad and contested notion, developed as an attempt to mediate between a number of movements and ideologies. In particular, it can be understood as a compromise between system-critical ecologists and pragmatic growth supporters. There is an inter-esting paradox in envisioning both growth and balance at the same time, which is explored and discussed in the paper. The construct of concept as well as the mainstream political discourses around it hide essential conflicts behind rhetorics of synergism between, e.g., environmental, social and economic di-mensions.
To move beyond these problems, the concept must be deconstructed into its two constituents: a goal of development which must be conditioned by a proviso of sustainability (Langhelle, 1999). The goal, however, is not devel-opment per se but what we need it for. This goal can be broadly defined as lifequality, if an anthropocentric and philanthropic point of view is applied, which means that equal value is ascribed to all humans, and that the values of other things are understood as their values for human society. Life quality can be related to what Our Common Future (WCED, 1987) formulates as meeting human needs, with specific focus on the basic needs of the planet’s poor, but what human needs are is a complex question. Thematic paper A introduces Manfred Max-Neef’s (1992) framework of non-hierarchal needs and satisfiers, which is also used in Paper V. One important dimension of the framework is that it recognises so-called non-satisfiers, i.e. things we tend to do to still some of our aspirations but which will eventually harm us or inhibit our needs satis-faction. As Max-Neef also points out, an important strategy to enhance life quality is to enhance citizens’ possibilities to influence their life opportunities. In the context of tenant involvement in open space management, this can be understood as the tenants’ influence on their living conditions.
When it comes to the proviso, it is logically subordinated to the goal. Given the principles of equality between humans in a global and inter-generational perspective, the goal of life quality in itself actually sets the necessary condi-tions for achieving it. However, due to the complexity of the issue, there is reason to place great emphasis on clarifying these conditions in the discussions on sustainable development. In the debates, there is a general consensus on sustainability as a proviso for development, but what it implies concretely is largely unclear or contested. One key question is what we can expect from future technological advancements.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 55
Robustness and social robustness
As discussed in Thematic paper A, the term sustainability suffers from several deficits, which can be avoided by instead using the term robustness: (a) Ro-bustness is more clearly a relative concept, not indicating that there is an abso-lute state or a fixed system which can be ‘sustained’; (b) While sustainability may falsely appear to be an objective and measurable concept, robustness is more clearly something whose contents must be renegotiated and adapted to the situation; and (c) The term robustness is more neutral than sustainability in that it can always be questioned and it can be discussed in terms of both good and bad.
Here, robustness is generally defined as a system’s capacity to survive and thrive under changing and adverse conditions. However, the general definition must be concretised in each situation (compare to Lélé, 1991): Which re-sources are to be protected? For which purposes? And against which threats?
Multi-dimensionality is often recognised as a key feature of sustainable de-velopment. Correspondingly, robustness can also be discussed in relation to several dimensions. Six robustness dimensions with relevance for planning theory are discussed in the thematic paper. Of these, social robustness is iden-tified as most relevant for the analysis of tenant involvement in open space management, addressing the need of reciprocity and cooperation norms. So-cial robustness thereby links directly to social capital theory as well as game theory, which will be discussed further below.
To see how the social dimension has been conceptualised in sustainable de-velopment discourses on a broader level, a small Internet-based survey was performed. Five common conceptualisations of social aspects of sustainable development were identified (presented in Thematic paper A). Interestingly, none of these actually involve the idea of sustaining social systems. Some con-cern social or ethical development goals, while others concern social robust-ness from different angles.
Social robustness, as the notion is used in this dissertation, refers primarily to the ‘social stability’ of the local social community, i.e. how social relations and norms can contribute to preventing and solving conflicts and exclusion problems among neighbours in the housing area. There is also a wider dimen-sion, however, in how the local social networks and norms can affect the ro-bustness of society at large. This potential connection between the local com-munity and society, together with the local social networks’ importance for living conditions, is the theme of next section.
3.2.2. The Community Quest, social capital and togetherness
Drawing on Barry Wellman’s (1979) Community Question, Thematic paper B discusses the political and academic interest in social robustness throughout history in terms of the Community Quest – i.e. an ideological concern for the social consequences of modernity and a call for the importance of local social networks, informal norms, and general trust. What the social consequences of modernity are has been the subject of many academic debates, projecting rather dystopic scenarios of alienation and distrust as well as more optimistic visions of emancipation and individual freedom. Although the robustness per-spective of social change – the underlying fear of a future societal collapse – is
56
what legitimates the capitalisation of the Community Quest, it is largely a concern for human life quality.
Ferdinand Tönnies’ (1887/1957) classical theoretical model of Gemeinschaftand Gesellschaft is often discredited and sometimes accused of being back-ward-looking and nostalgic. However, the model is not necessarily normative, and it is a mistake to see it as a polar dichotomy forming a trajectory between the traditional rural and the modern urban types of society. As suggested in the thematic paper, it is a strong and useful analytical tool if instead under-stood as a neutral dualism of two parallel but opposite perspectives. It can be related to Anthony Gidden’s distinction between face-work and faceless commitments, and to Jürgen Habermas’ theory of the lifeworld and the sys-tem, but the two German terms represent a broader analytical approach, de-scribing two possible facets or versions of society or of a local community.
Benefits and constraints of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft may differ de-pending not only on context but also on whom it concerns. It is tempting to connect the Gemeinschaft–Gesellschaft dualism to the idea of an opposition between safety and freedom. Gemeinschaft supports safety through informal social control and social networking, and Gesellschaft gives freedom to indi-viduals from restraining traditions, prejudices and norm systems. However, as argued by Zygmunt Bauman (2001), freedom is worth nothing without safety, and true safety requires freedom.
It could be anticipated that the Community Quest, as well as Gemeinschaft, has played out its role in the network society, i.e. that place attachment and local communities are outdated phenomena. However, there are many indica-tions of the opposite. Some influential theorists emphasise that the same fun-damental tendencies of modernity continue, thus questioning the relevance of a concept such as post-modernity. It could also be argued that interpersonal communication and social networking appear to be central now more than ever, although the forms of communication and networks may have changed. One indicator of the validity of the Community Quest is the great academic and political interest in the concept of social capital.
Social capital
Social capital is a complex notion used in many different ways, and is often misunderstood. In Thematic paper B, the concept is thoroughly analysed and defined. In contrast to physical capital (all material assets) and human capital (knowledge and skills inherent in individuals), social capital is inherent in so-cial relations and norms. This can be seen as the two key components of social capital – the structural component of social network configurations and the cognitive component of social norms. Social capital is sometimes seen as an asset for individuals, which can be defined as the potential of a person to gain benefits through the help of social relations. These benefits may consist of the physical or human capital of others, so that the social capital is merely a means of transferring other forms of capital. However, social capital is what triggers action which would not have happened otherwise, and social action involves more than just an exchange of assets. For example, it always affects the relationship between the involved parties. In other words, every social capital ‘transaction’ is also an investment or disinvestment in social capital. Social capital is highly elusive, especially since it has a limited stability over
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 57
time. In general, it “does not wear out with use but rather with disuse”, as es-tablished by Elinor Ostrom (2000).
Social capital can also be seen as a collective asset, which makes it an even more elusive concept. While an individual’s social capital can be measured as the sum of her social relations, a collective’s social capital must also be related to the cognitive component and can be measured as the sum the informal so-cial norms. There is also an important qualitative difference between social capital analyses on a social network level and on a macro-societal level. In the latter case, no personal social relations are involved; it is based entirely on things such as general trust and generally accepted behavioural codes. The macro-societal perspective has been popular among many social capital advo-cates drawing on Robert D. Putnam’s statistical studies (Putnam, Leonardi & Nanetti, 1993; Putnam, 2000). However, in this dissertation, the level of study is the local community of urban neighbourhoods and the use of social capital as an analytical concept is directly connected to local social networks.
A broader definition of social capital may also involve society’s formal in-stitutions. Here, though, social capital generally refers to what Anirudh Krishna (2000) calls relational capital (i.e. based on social relations and infor-mal social norms) as opposed to institutional capital (i.e. formal organisations and legal frameworks). There is also a zone where relational and institutional capital interlace, as relations always play a role in formal organisations. The distinction between a formal and an informal organisation is thereby hard to make. In relation to this, one interesting parameter of norms is that we may be more or less conscious of their existence and of how they influence our behav-iour. Social behaviours may consequently be driven by more or less instru-mental motivations, or sometimes it is rather a matter of instinctive adaptation to social expectations. In the same way, informal social norms can develop more or less consciously in the interplay between members of a social net-work.
An important conceptual model drawn from social network theory is the dualism of bonding and bridging. It is partly connected to Mark Granovetter’s (1973) rationalistic model of strong and weak ties in social networks, and partly to Putnam’s and other social capital theorists’ discussion on the prob-lem of bonding network structures and inward-looking norm systems. As dis-cussed in the thematic paper, the bonding–bridging concepts are often used intuitively and unreflectedly in the literature. When analysed on a deeper level, it becomes evident that a stringent distinction between the two must be related not only to which kind of social divide is studied, but also to a specific time-spatial situation. This means that every social bridge may become a bond in a future situation or if studied on a larger scale.
Neighbourhood togetherness
When applying social capital theory in the context of tenant involvement in open space management to explore its potential role from a social robustness and living condition perspective, the need for yet another concept emerges; a concept which can capture the specific kind of social networking often occur-ring in relation to involvement processes. For this purpose, the concept of neighbourhood togetherness is developed in Thematic paper B and Paper IV. A literature survey shows that the notion of togetherness is used relatively
58
little in academic works, but that it occurs in a variety of contexts, one of which is social networks in neighbourhoods. Similar to the related notions of ‘community’ and ‘social cohesion’, ‘togetherness’ is often used in a relatively positive sense – it is described as an asset for individuals, families, or other social groups. However, there are also several more critical interpretations of the concept, often emphasising burdening expectations and forced loyalties.
The concept is attributed three different ‘levels of meaning’, denoted as: (a) the practice; (b) the sense; and (c) the ideological principle of togetherness (see Thematic paper B and Paper IV). A stringent use of the concept requires that these three levels of meaning be separated, although they are often in-terwoven with each other empirically. Togetherness practice refers to the act or habit of being together or doing things together. Togetherness sense refers to the mental identification of an ‘us’, i.e. a feeling of belonging to someone or something. The togetherness principle is a more abstract ideological assump-tion or standpoint that there is, or should be, a connection between things.
In the neighbourhood context, the togetherness principle has sometimes been present in urban design discourses – those emphasising that a well built environment is one that facilitates neighbour contact – and underpins many of the ‘Community Quest initiatives’ aiming at revitalising urban areas. When neighbourhood togetherness is studied in situ, however, the ideological di-mension is a background factor. In the foreground is instead how togetherness is practiced, and how the inhabitants identify themselves in relation to each other and to the neighbourhood. While togetherness practice in a neighbour-hood consists largely of observable activities taking place in the public and semi-public spaces of the area, indirect data collection through respondents is required to analyse togetherness sense. As shown in Paper IV, the formal and informal tenant involvement processes in Angered Centrum can be seen as fora for togetherness practice as well as media for togetherness sense. The groups of involved tenants are also togetherness networks.
It is concluded in Thematic paper B that togetherness sense is based on shared identities and bonding. In cases in which togetherness develops across social divides, the bridges are created by the means of bonding. A conse-quence of the bonding character of togetherness sense is that its practice nor-mally involves some kind of social exclusion. Although there is a hypothetical situation in which all inhabitants of a distinct ‘neighbourhood’ are included in a togetherness network, it is likely that at least some of them do not feel the same belonging as others and do not participate in the common activities.
Given this connection between togetherness and social exclusion, it is highly relevant to search for mechanisms which can contribute to bridging social divides and including marginalised groups in social networks. Paul Lich-terman (2005) discusses a similar process in terms of social spiralling – when a community organisation manages to create enduring relationships with tar-geted individuals and groups, thereby supporting local empowerment and self-organisation. Drawing from his own and others’ empirical studies, he con-cludes that successful social spiralling is much more unusual than what could be expected. Lichterman suggests that there is a connection between the group-building customs – also termed group style – of a community organisa-tion and its ability to succeed in social spiralling. One of the most important aspects of the group style is whether or not the group practices social reflexiv-ity – i.e. that there is an open-minded attitude and a continuous self-critical
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 59
discussion on concrete experiences and the group’s “relations with their wider social context”. Lichterman’s concepts of group style and social reflexivity have been used in the analysis of neighbourhood togetherness and social ex-clusion in Paper IV, and hold a central position in the conclusions of this dis-sertation.
3.2.3. Participation, local control and collective action
As discussed in Thematic paper C, there is a general consensus that participa-tion is a fundamental prerequisite for sustainable development, although the exact reasons why it is important are often not analysed. One problem is that it is usually not clearly defined what participation is. Key questions are: Who participates? In what kind of process? On which conditions? Tenant involve-ment in open space management can be regarded as a type of participation process, whereby local inhabitants become involved in or even take over the housing company’s management of the yard. On another level, it is also a question of which of the tenants participate in the management process of the involvement group. In Thematic paper C, two participation perspectives are presented: that of local control and that of collective action.
The local control perspective deals with the power distribution in participa-tion processes. It acknowledges that participation often involves a dimension of decentralisation, i.e. that there is a situation in which control or influence is somehow transferred from more ‘central’ power positions towards the ‘local’. The central–local dichotomy refers to the geographical as well as the institu-tional distance between the place where formal decisions are made (the cen-tral) and the place affected by these decisions (the local). In the case of tenant involvement in open space management, the local control perspective con-cerns the empowerment of tenants, giving them the means to influence their living conditions.
It is also discussed in the thematic paper that inclusion, meeting in inter-place and local empowerment can be seen as three principally different re-sponses to exclusion from decision-making. The kind of local control brought about by the studied involvement processes represents the latter strategy, whereby control is transferred from central places of decision-making to the local housing area on the conditions of the involved tenants. It involves ‘power over’ existing management decision spaces as well as ‘power to’ de-velop new decision spaces (borrowing the terms from Wrong, 1979/2002).
More concretely, however, local control is a highly relative concept. As ex-amined in Paper II, there are different levels of control as well as different ranges of management responsibilities in the studied involvement processes. There are also both formal and informal components of tenant influence and local control. Moreover, there are important conflict perspectives to consider, which is emphasised throughout the dissertation.
The local control perspective relates directly to core ethics of political sci-ence and the citizens’ right to influence their life opportunities. There is also the possibility for more pragmatic arguments for why local control is desir-able, as it can be an efficient means to meet human needs or to integrate ‘local knowledge’ into the planning process. All these arguments, however, need to be scrutinised in the light of each concrete local situation, not least regarding the constant question of who is included in and excluded from the participa-
60
tion. Arguably, the role of local control in sustainable development is more related to the life quality goal than to the robustness proviso, even though there is one important connection to robustness, which will be discussed in the following subsection.
The second participation perspective, on the contrary, is directly connected to social robustness and closely related to social capital theory. It concerns collective action, or rather the question of under which circumstances groups of people can find successful forms of cooperation. The problem with this is so-called social dilemmas, i.e. mismatches between short-term individual and long-term collective interests, which may eventually impede the cooperation towards common goals. The issue of social dilemmas holds a central position in sustainable development discourses, especially regarding the management of common-pool environmental resources such as ecosystems. Thematic paper C reviews a number of game-theoretical approaches to social dilemmas. While some of these are highly reductionistic and rationalistic, Elinor Ostrom (e.g. 1990; 2005) belongs to those who emphasise the potential of social networks and informal social norms in overcoming social dilemmas.
The residential yard can be seen as a common-pool resource, whereby the involvement processes can be analysed as collective action situations in which social dilemmas such as free-rider problems are solved. However, in reality this analogy is a bit far-sighted. The yard is not threatened by depletion and if the tenants are not involved, the housing company will take care of the man-agement. Moreover, as in many similar kinds of collective action processes, the involvement in itself is often rewarding, rather than being a mere ‘cost’. Although the free-rider issue is indeed discussed in relation to tenant in-volvement, game-theoretical social dilemmas do not appear to be the main obstacles to tenants becoming involved.
Tenant involvement as self-organisation
More interesting, from a robustness perspective, is the capability of social mo-bilisation, or, to use another term: The potential for self-organisation in the local community. Self-organisation is a term used in different research fields to describe how ‘order’ can appear in complex systems as a result of appar-ently spontaneous processes. While the focus is often on studying ‘unintended’ and even ‘unexpected’ synergy effects from ‘non-social’ actants in a system, here self-organisation is understood as a social process of informal or formal organising in the local community. Connecting to the above discussion on cen-trality, self-organisation is the antithesis to central planning, a form of local empowerment by which new decision-spaces are created. Hence, self-organisation can be described as a conceptual sibling of self-management, and autonomous forms of tenant involvement in open space management are typi-cal examples of self-organisation.
The theme of Paper V is how collective gardening processes can function as a coping strategy for residents in marginalised housing areas. In this case, ’coping strategy’ is another way of expressing the situation in which lack of external support opens for self-organisation initiatives. As Lina Olsson (2008) argues in her thesis The self-organised city, these local initiatives must be seen in the light of current neoliberal politics and cutbacks in the social welfare
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 61
systems, which have contributed to the marginalisation of urban areas (see also discussions on stigmatisation and marginalisation in Thematic paper E).
3.2.4. Place, territoriality and appropriation
In the study of the spatial organisation of society, territoriality is a central concept. Deriving from etological studies of things such as birds’ home ranges, it has been commonly used in discussions about human behaviours in urban spaces since the 1970s (see, e.g., Kärrholm, 2004). As such, it recognises the need for humans, for practical and affectionate reasons, to be able to relate to, access, influence and control places. On the most fundamental level, human activities always ‘take place’. This means that place is needed and there is a connection between what you can do and where you do it. Place connection, however, is much more than just a matter of practical functionality – it also involves self-identification and emotional affection.
One essential feature of cities is spatial concentration, and a natural conse-quence is congestion and territorial conflicts of different kinds. However, cit-ies are often organised in ways that allow potential territorial conflicts to be avoided. For example, many urban spaces are demarcated and defined as pri-vate or ‘club’ territories. Territorial conflicts of the kind discussed here typi-cally arise from more vaguely defined semi-public or public urban spaces. Such places are common in modernist Swedish rental housing areas, where the ownership and functions of semi-enclosed residential yards, small nature areas and parcels along the streets are often unclear and negotiable. The concept of territoriality as introduced in Thematic paper D concentrates on how it is ex-ercised in such shared open spaces of urban neighbourhoods. Therefore, it needs to be related to the concept of publicness.
The interpersonal semi-public domain
Publicness is a key parameter in urban theory. Here, publicness as well as pri-vateness refer to the perception of places rather than to judicial aspects, and the concepts are relative rather than absolute entities. While it is possible to identify places which are private in an absolute sense (fully accessed and con-trolled by only one person or household), the absolute public (whereby every-one has equal control) remains a hypothetical ideal (e.g. Mitchell, 1995). What is normally understood as the public domain consists of places with a high degree of non-discriminating accessibility and where most people are anony-mous to each other. Ali Madanipour (2003) therefore suggests that this can be seen as an impersonal domain, in contrast to the interpersonal domain which is mediated and at least partly controlled through social relationships. How-ever, the exact border between them cannot be defined other than in abstract terms. The socio-spatial structures of the city are highly complex webs of nested and multi-functional territories; interpersonal meetings are an essential component of life in the most impersonal public spaces, and anonymous strangers appear even in the most interpersonal settings.
As argued in Thematic paper D, critical urban debates mainly pay attention to the most public spaces (such as central city squares, parks and streets), and the wider social implications of territoriality in ‘semi-public’ neighbourhood spaces are often neglected. However, a significant part of urban life take place
62
in semi-public settings like those studied in this project. These constitute what Lyn Lofland (1998) terms (perhaps a bit condescendingly) the parochial realm, but what is simply called the semi-public domain here.
Another way to express the difference between impersonal (public) and in-terpersonal (semi-public) domains is that territoriality in the latter works pri-marily through Gemeinschaft mechanisms. In contrast, territoriality in the public domain is more related to the Gesellschaft paradigm. The discussion about territoriality in urban public space deals with a multitude of issues, but there is less focus on the influence of local social networks than on, e.g., gen-eral behavioural codes, commercial interests, and the authorities’ formal deci-sions about the design, use regulations, and surveillance of the spaces. If a metropolitan city ideal can be discerned, it supports a dense building structure with a strong focus on sharp divisions between public and private spaces, and it is not an urban form which facilitates such a thing as neighbourhood togeth-erness (even though Jane Jacobs’ famous depiction of Manhattan’s street life is surprisingly full of Gemeinschaft attributes).
Chris Webster (2003) suggests that there is a natural movement from public spaces towards private spaces as a result of increasing urban congestion. In the semi-public domain this is represented by a transformation of ‘local public goods’ into ‘club goods’. Residential yards are often typical local public goods, which belong to all inhabitants of a certain area, but where there is a kind of rivalry between different user groups or different kinds of uses. A ‘club’ is an exclusive group and only its members have access to the club goods. In the housing area context, a neighbourhood togetherness group can be seen as an informal club constellation. Through frequent use of the yard, the group can control it and transform it into club territory.
Appropriation
A more common term (and probably with a less critical connotation) for the process of ‘making a place one’s own’ is appropriation. As an analytical con-cept, it focuses on mechanisms and consequences of informal territoriality, often emphasising identification with and emotional affection for a certain place. It may also involve thoughts about how spaces are transformed into places; i.e. how they get meaning through being used. Paradoxically, appro-priation can be seen as either a prerequisite for, or a threat against, publicness. It is often conceptualised as the citizens’ reclaiming of their right to the city, as a contrast to the unappropriated abstract spaces controlled and dominated by authorities or commercial interests. In this case, appropriation creates public-ness – it makes ‘the public’ owners of the urban spaces. A problem with this dialectical approach, though, is that it secludes the territorial domination in-herent in appropriation. Arguably, appropriation cannot be ‘universally pub-lic’ – it is one individual’s or one group’s appropriation of one specific place. Especially in central public urban spaces, shared by numerous interests, it is difficult to think of an appropriation process which is not in conflict with any other interests. Also in the less complex semi-public domain of the residential yard, it is likely that one group’s appropriation will imply some kind of limita-tion for other groups.
On the other hand, when the mechanisms are studied concretely, it appears that one group’s appropriation of a place does not necessarily exclude others
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 63
from using it. As discussed on pages 77-79, it is often likely that the increased use of a place and users’ involvement in its management will make it more accessible and functional for other groups. This obviously concerns underused and deteriorated sites, but the mechanism can also be valid for dense neighbourhood settings, which can be concluded from the case study.
The residential yard and its functions
The place context of the study and the residential yard have already been in-troduced on page 39. Thematic paper D offers a more elaborate definition of the residential yard concept, as a type of shared neighbourhood space. The paper also discusses the functions of residential yards from both a historical and different social perspectives. It is established that the yard is much more than a design product, as it is largely shaped by use and maintenance. More-over, although it concretely sets up frames for how the yard can be used, its physical appearance is just one of the dimensions. More importantly, the meanings and functions are framed by the conceptions of the inhabitants, and by the social environment. The yard is thus constantly produced and repro-duced when it is used.
Another important aspect is that the yard has a wide spectrum of functions, ranging over aesthetic, symbolic, practical and social uses. Practical and social uses can always be observed, as they involve activities taking place within the yard. Aesthetic and symbolic uses can be more difficult to measure, as they may also involve such things as viewing the yard from one’s apartment, think-ing about it, or even unreflectedly feeling satisfied with the image it gives to the area. The difference between doing things in the yard and other ways of using it is also discussed in the dissertation in terms of active versus passive use of the yard (Kristensson, 2003). Active use always has a territorial dimension – it affects others’ use of the yard. It can also affect the meanings of the place for the user as well as for others who register the activities, which means that it is a part of an appropriation process. Passive use, however, is basically non-rival even if it may be thought of as territorial in the sense that it can strengthen the relationship between the user and the yard.
3.3. Outcomes of tenant involvement in open space management This section will give a broad overview of potential outcomes of tenant in-volvement in open space management, also relating to studies of collective gardening in a wider range of local contexts. Thus, the data derives from both previous and present case studies. In the first section, 3.3.1, some dimensions of the analytical frameworks used will be discussed. Thereafter, potential out-comes will be discussed in terms of benefits and conflicts, in Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3, respectively.
3.3.1. How can outcomes be analysed?
It is a very difficult task to sort out the wide range of possible outcomes of tenant involvement in open space management. It not only assumes many different forms, but each local process is also always very complex and can be
64
analysed from many different angles. As suggested in Paper V, there are dif-ferent ‘components’ of tenant involvement or other collective gardening proc-esses. First, the garden or yard is a place which provides functions for the neighbourhood and its inhabitants. Second, the activity of gardening or open space management can have certain effects on the involved tenants as indi-viduals and on the social environment in the area, which can also indirectly affect other residents and visitors. Third, other types of effects may be the result of the collective action rather than of the management activities, i.e. effects connected to the cooperation and social interaction between involved tenants, regardless of what they cooperate around. A fourth component is that of local control, i.e. that the tenants acquire a new type of influence over their living conditions through their involvement (see Figure 14).
Figure 14. Four components of tenant involvement in open space manage-ment and other types of collective gardening.
Michael S. Jamison (1985) has concluded that there is a fundamental differ-ence between the discourses of public agencies and grassroots organisations promoting community gardens. According to him, they may describe the benefits of collective gardening in similar ways, but there are underlying dif-ferences in the understanding of how the processes work: While public agen-cies emphasise the individual gardening experience, the grassroots movements stress the group work component, i.e. the collective action. Outcomes can hence be understood differently depending on whose perspective is used. Ex-amples of perspectives are:
1. Individual: Effects on individual tenants who are involved or on af-fected individuals who are not involved.
2. Group: Effects on specific social groups such as ethnic groups, age groups, women or men, involved and non-involved.
3. Local community: Effects on the area or local community as a whole.
4. Society perspectives: Effects on a wider long-term level, e.g. on society as a whole.
These perspectives also represent different scales of analysis. Most commonly in the reviewed literature, the focus is on the effects on involved individuals
A place Activity
Collectiveaction
Localcontrol
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 65
and on the local community. Depending on the perspective, certain effects can be viewed as either positive or negative. For example, bonding networks as a result of collective gardening can contribute to order and safety for the group of involved individuals and for the neighbourhood as a whole, but at the same time can restrain and exclude certain other individuals or groups. Overall, negative outcomes are seldom discussed in the literature and the perspectives of presumptively disadvantaged groups are largely neglected.
Given the diversity of possible causalities and perspectives, it is natural that outcomes of tenant involvement in open space management and other forms of collective gardening have been described in very different ways. Kurtz (2001, p. 659) points out that different studies show very different results of what community gardeners value in their gardens, which is not surprising con-sidering the multifold types of processes and the difficulties in formulating questions and answers consistently.
Paper V elaborates further on the outcomes of collective gardening de-scribed in the literature, using a model based on the three perspectives of the individual residents, the neighbourhood and society. In the following section, however, a more comprehensive thematic structure will instead be used to provide a condense compilation of the findings from previous studies on col-lective gardening and to discuss these findings in relation to the results of the present studies of tenant involvement in open space management. The eight themes (or rather: thematic clusters), listed in Table 5, originate from the as-pects appearing in the literature review.
Table 5. Eight themes of documented effects of collective gardening ad-dressed in literature
Theme Main component Main perspectives
1 Recreation, restoration and learning
Place; Activity Individual; Society
2 Social networking, together-ness and integration
Collective; Activity; Place
Community; Group
3 Safety through social control and physical order
Collective; Place Community; Individual
4 Gender, ethnicity and com-munity identity
Activity; Place; Col-lective
Group; Community; Society
6 Food production Place Individual; Society
5 Democracy aspects Control; Collective Society
7 Economic aspects Place; Collective Individual; Community
8 Ecological aspects Place; Activity Society
3.3.2. Potential benefits
This section presents an overview of the potential benefits of collective gar-dening, as documented in the reviewed literature, and comparisons are made to the findings from the survey on tenant involvement processes in Göteborg
66
and from the case study in Angered. The structure is based on the eight themes listed in Table 5.
Recreation, restoration and learning
Recreation is a broad term. Typically, it refers to leisure-related physical exer-cise, often in outdoor settings. It involves not only exercise, though, but also rest and restoration, which can be seen as a key aspect or as a type of recrea-tion. Learning is another related aspect, which in this case concerns both learning aspects of recreation/leisure activities and more specific learning ac-tivities. The environmental setting is of course essential for the possibilities to perform recreation or learning activities as well as for the potential restorative effects from merely being there and experiencing the garden or yard with one’s senses. While the discussion on recreation opportunities more often concerns larger green areas, forests, parks, sometimes even far outside the city, many studies on collective gardening emphasise the importance of small green open spaces near the home.
Special attention is often paid to the health benefits of gardening, as a re-sult of the physical exercise it involves and the psychological effects in connec-tion to sensory experiences as well as to a kind of spiritual sense of coherence. These effects are typically assessed on the basis of interviews with gardeners. There are also attempts to draw logical connections between detected patterns in a case study of collective gardening and findings from other kinds of stud-ies. For example, a greener living environment should be beneficial in accor-dance with environmental psychology research; and as outdoor physical exer-cise is generally attributed with good health effects in many medical studies, garden work should also be good. One specific recreational function of many gardens is to provide good opportunities for children’s play, which connects to a broad field of developmental psychology, physiotherapy and pedagogics. Other collective garden projects are specifically aimed at providing resources for the rehabilitation of the mentally disabled or people who have been con-victed of crimes. Here and there in the literature, notes are also made to high-light the importance for people, notably children, to come into contact with nature and thereby learn tacitly how the ecosystems function. Gardening as an activity is particularly emphasised, as it involves following the cycles of plants, nutrients and water.
In the context of residential yards in Swedish rental housing areas, the gar-dening issue is not as central as it is in many other contexts. The yards are there and they are green, even without the involvement of the tenants. The case study indicates, much in line with the expectations, that the involvement processes increase the diversity of the environment (notably in terms of add-ing flower beds) and use of the yard, but it is hard to say whether they have significant effects on health through increased physical exercise or garden therapy. Neither the survey nor the case study gives examples of yards where the children’s play perspective has been in the centre. Rather, there are some indications that adults’ interests have been prioritised over children’s (see Pa-per IV and page 79 below).
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 67
Social networking, togetherness and integration
Collective gardening is intimately connected to social networking and togeth-erness in almost all the reviewed reports. Interaction between neighbours is necessary for the initiation and organisation of collective involvement proc-esses, which in turn lays the foundation for more social exchange and the con-tinuous development of social relations (e.g. as described in Glover, 2004, p. 150). Social networking is often described as a very important outcome, con-nected primarily to the process of collective action. However, the open space management activities per se and even the impacts they have on the physical environment have also been pointed out as agents for social networking.
One reason for increased social interaction is that the management activi-ties take place ‘in public’ – bringing people out from their private apartments. Others will pass by, providing an opportunity to make contacts. Another rea-son is that the activities themselves can trigger social contact. If someone is planting flowers in your yard, there is something concrete to focus on – some-thing to look at, something to comment on or question – which can lead to the establishment of a new contact (see, e.g., Bartolomei et al., 2003, p.36). Also, improvements to the physical environment may serve to facilitate meetings. As noted by Englander (2001, p. 7): “A garden bench becomes a spot for a casual conversation. Weddings, block parties, crime-watch meetings, music classes, after-school tutoring – all take place in gardens simply for the joy of the surroundings.”
One aspect of social networking is that it is actually something that directly gives people value in their everyday lives: It can be a direct source of well-being. People are social beings and normally enjoy social interaction, as is de-scribed in many of the narratives from involved tenants. Another aspect of social networking is that it is the media for production and reproduction of social capital (see Thematic paper B), which can be a secondary source of well-being. Social capital is primarily a resource for the members of a social network, but can also benefit the wider community in different ways. This is often described as the community-building effect of collective gardening: It can strengthen and improve the community’s identity, it facilitates social con-tact, and it provides an infrastructure for social control. However, as discussed in the next section, socialisation within one group may sometimes involve problems of conflict and exclusion.
Of particular interest in many settings is the potential to bridge different ethnic or cultural groups. Several studies point out that there are specific qualities in collective gardening in response to this issue. Collective gardening involves cooperation in concrete tasks, and there are connections to cultural identities, sharing and learning. Moreover, it is often argued that many immi-grants come from rural areas and that gardening creates an important link to their past and gives them the possibility to take advantage of skills and knowl-edge which are otherwise not valuable in urban everyday life. There are even examples of collective gardening initiatives whose main purpose is to contrib-ute to the integration of immigrants (Müller, 2004; Rosol, 2005). It has also been argued in Swedish studies of tenant involvement in open space manage-ment that it appears to be more common for ethnic minorities to be involved in these processes than in more traditional civil society associations.
68
Social networking and the development of togetherness are core outcomes of the involvement processes studied in Göteborg and Angered. As described in Paper IV, neighbourhood togetherness can offer many benefits to the in-volved tenants as well as the larger community. There is also an important connection to sustainable development through the concept of social robust-ness (see page 57).
Safety through social control10 and physical order
Increased safety – or more accurately expressed: an increased sense of safety – is one of the more commonly praised outcomes of tenant involvement in open space management or other forms of collective gardening. To generalise, there are two main ways in which increased safety is achieved: through social net-working and control, and through improvements to the physical environment. Glover (2004) illustrates the role of social control in community gardens with a story told by one interviewee whose expensive wrought-iron patio set had been stolen but was directly thereafter recognised and returned to her thanks to the interaction of two of her neighbours. Glover’s conclusion is that “know-ing people developed a sense of security among neighbors” (Glover, 2004, p. 151). Englander (2001, p.11) argues that community gardens “help to reduce crime by serving as centers of activity at all times of day, and by encouraging bonds and recognition among neighbors”. Swedish studies show similar re-sults, especially emphasising the connection between neighbourhood togeth-erness and the sense of safety.
The other way collective gardening can affect safety is through improve-ments to the physical environment. Jane Schukoske (2000) does not hesitate to place the very existence of vacant urban lots in direct connection to trash accumulation and criminal activity. In line with the fixing broken windows hypothesis (see, e.g., Kelling & Wilson, 1982; Kelling & Coles, 1996), she claims that “vacant lots are a considerable hazard to the well-being of an ur-ban community” (Schukoske, 2000, p. 361). The fixing broken windows hy-pothesis has been heavily criticised (see, e.g., Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999; Harcourt, 2001) and there is little substantial proof in the community garden literature of a causal relationship between physical orderliness and crime re-duction. However, it is also argued in several Swedish reports that reduced vandalism and beautification of yards can increase the sense of safety.
The overview survey and the case study give general support to the sugges-tion that social control develops in involvement processes and that this is a source of safety for many. It has been more difficult to find substantial support for safety effects through the improvement of the physical environments in the studied processes.
10 It needs to be noted here that ‘social control’ is sometimes used to describe efforts by au-thorities or corporations to control people’s behaviour, such as legislation, police action, technical surveillance systems, institutionalised neighbourhood wards, etc. (see, e.g., Body-Gendrot, 2000). Throughout this dissertation, however, ‘social control’ refers to informalsocial control, i.e. control stemming from citizens’ non-institutionalised guarding of social norms and not least individuals’ self-control to adapt their behaviour to others’ expectations.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 69
Gender, ethnicity, and community identity
Tenant involvement in open space management and other forms of collective gardening initiatives are often described as shapers of identities on different levels. Some of the stories presented show how individuals express pride and find new roles and meanings through their involvement in collective garden-ing. Here, the reproduction of and resistance to three kinds of group identities will be discussed: gender identities, ethnic identities and community identities.
Most studies commenting on gender conclude that women are over-represented in the processes (e.g. Bengtsson et al., 2003), although there are exceptions (e.g. Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2004). Some argue that gardening helps to empower women. Parry, Glover and Shinew (2005) describe how women are often the ones who take the initiative and have leading roles in the organising of community gardens, and that these experiences of leadership can also help them to seek out new opportunities and improve situations in their everyday lives outside the gardening activities. Christa Müller (2004) points out that many immigrant women who face double oppression – in pub-lic space they are discriminated against as foreigners in a xenophobic culture, and in the private home they live under limiting patriarchal structures – find refuge in the community garden, which is outside the normal public-private dichotomy and allows them to build their own social networks.
Another identity aspect is connected to the opportunity to express some-thing specific through gardening. In particular, the cultural expression of eth-nic minorities is commonly mentioned as an important function of collective gardening. While the mixture of backgrounds among people cooperating to manage a garden or residential yard is often acknowledged as a means of bridging social ties and integration, there is also an interest in ethnically ho-mogeneous community gardens. In such gardens, ethnic minorities grow their native crops, make traditional foods and celebrate feasts to maintain, recall and reconstruct their ethnic identities (see, e.g., Giraud, 1990; Bartolomei et al., 2003; Baker, 2004; Librizzi, 2004). This means that stigmatising ‘top-down’ identities shaped by the dominant groups are resisted through collective gar-dening processes and ‘bottom-up’ manifestations of positive identities.
A third identity aspect, very central in the literature, deals with the identity of the community as a whole, whereby tenant involvement and collective gar-dening initiatives have often been described as struggles to create positive and alternative identities in response to a negative reputation. After a broad study of community garden programmes in seven US cities, the Parks & People Foundation (2000, p. 59) states that “the ultimate goal of most community-managed open space sites is to turn under-utilized, and perhaps blighted ar-eas, into assets”. There are numerous stories describing how stigmatised and deteriorated neighbourhoods are revitalised through collective gardening ini-tiatives. The story of the Queen Anne Memorial Garden (Glover, 2003; see also Paper V) is told in a triumphant manner. It is the story of a local commu-nity confronting their stigma and resisting conformation to the identity they were given by the society outside. Instead, they organised to take control of the development, a struggle they eventually won. According to Glover’s nar-rative, the community garden was the fundament on which the new identity was built. There are several similar stories in the literature of how groups of residents create new images of their neighbourhoods by planting gardens on
70
derelict lots (e.g. Severson, 1990; Schmelzkopf, 1995; Englander, 2001; Rosol, 2005). Other stories describe comparable revitalisation processes in Swedish suburbs, with a focus more on the collective action than on the changes to the physical environments (e.g. Modh, 1988; Alfredsson & Cars, 1996; Modh, 1998; 1999; Edlund et al., 2001).
The community identity is also connected to how citizens identify with their residential area. In Bartolomei et al. (2003), some of the interviewed garden-ers express that they feel much more attached to their housing estate since they started being involved in the gardening. Taking responsibility for the area and engaging in its maintenance implies a change in how one relates to the place – it implies a kind of identification process. Furthermore, as also pointed out in the report, gardeners become very proud of their work for the commu-nity. They feel that they have taken on a role in the community, that they are no longer an anonymous face. “Interviewers spoke with pride about being community gardeners, respected and known by others on the Estate” (Bartolomei et al., 2003, p. 36). Some authors describe gardening per se as an activity which cultivates a sense of connection not only to the community, but to society at large. These narratives show a potential of collective gardening to contribute to a strengthened individual self-identity of capability, which Pudup (2008) refers to as “cultivating citizen-subjects”. Berglund et al. (1995, p. 7) assert that “participation in maintenance work is one of few possible pathways to strengthen the relations between the people and the residential area and thereby increase the well-being”.
Although the contexts of North American community gardens and Swedish tenant involvement are vastly different, there are clear connections between the described functions of the initiatives for marginalised groups and neighbourhoods. In particular, the potential of collective gardening in revitali-sation processes is of great interest from a sustainable development perspec-tive. The studies of tenant involvement in Göteborg confirm that it has signifi-cance for the community identity, although in these cases not as dramatic as it appears to be in many previous cases. The aspects of gender and ethnic identi-ties have not been explicitly scrutinised in the overview survey or the case study, and they have also not turned out to be a key issue.
Food production
Food supply is a big issue in the discussions about collective gardening, at least in North America. In many places around the continent, community garden movements are linked to anti-hunger and poverty movements. Publicly spon-sored programmes aiming at hunger alleviation through collective gardening initiatives are described in places such as Atlanta, Detroit and Toronto (Parks & People Foundation, 2000; Baker, 2004). Also in the UK, food production is mentioned as an important outcome of community gardening, to give eco-nomic relief to poor households (Holland, 2004, p. 290; Haigh & Reynolds, 2008).
Even when there is no direct risk of starvation, the supply of fresh food poses an important outcome for many community gardeners. In Armstrong’s (2000) survey of twenty community garden programmes in upstate New York, one of the most important reasons for participating was to get tastier and more nutritious food. A couple of studies have looked at pure nutrition as-
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 71
pects, aiming at assessing the health impact of community gardens (Twiss et al., 2003; Alaimo et al., 2008). Although the results point at increases in vege-table consumption, they seem relatively modest. However, there may be more intangible effects of greater importance, such as long-term shifts in attitudes, skills and knowledge.
The processes of tenant involvement in open space management studied in this project were not growing food crops, and the food production aspect has not been a central issue in previous Swedish studies of similar initiatives. However, the interest in food security through small-scale urban farming seems to be on the rise in high-income as well as low- and middle-income countries (see, e.g., Koc, 1999; Mougeot, 2005; Viljoen, 2005; Mougeot, 2006; Redwood, 2008). As noted on page 48, the urban agriculture issue has recently gained increasing attention also in Sweden, and the potential for food produc-tion in residential yards is perhaps not an irrelevant issue for a future with higher demands for energy reduction (see, e.g., Gottberg, 2009).
Democracy aspects
Drawing on theorists such as Alexis de Tocqueville, Jürgen Habermas and Robert D. Putnam, it is commonly suggested that collective gardening repre-sents a type of civic society organisation that has a fundamental role for de-mocracy in society. However, few studies have aimed to examine this explic-itly. In a survey of US community gardeners, Glover, Shinew and Parry (2005) find vague support for what Mark E. Warren denotes as ‘development effects’ – i.e., that community gardeners get fostered in democratic values, learn new skills, become more vocal, and gain a sense that they can influence change, thus being more able to contribute to the democracy system. It seems more difficult to find substantial proof for Warren’s ‘public sphere effects’ (that the involvement process provides a platform for social exchange in which political issues can be debated and new ideas emerge) and ‘institutional effects’ (that the involvement process functions as an intermediate organisation between the local inhabitants and the formal political system). Bengtsson et al. (2003) analyse the democracy effects of tenant involvement in open space manage-ment on two levels: ‘big democracy’ and ‘local resident democracy’. Concern-ing the ‘big democracy’, i.e. influence on the national and local political pow-ers, the authors conclude that the effects are unclear (Bengtsson et al., 2003, pp. 292-295). They suggest that there might be long-term effects due to bridg-ing networking, increasing trust and development of cooperation norms, but point out that building a democratic culture is a long-term process. Thus far, the social capital accumulated seems to be a local community issue that does not significantly affect the ‘big democracy’. Concerning the ‘local resident democracy’, on the other hand, which the authors prefer to describe in terms of local control, the involvement processes are an important step towards giv-ing citizens the possibility to influence their living environment (Bengtsson et al., 2003, pp. 295-296).
The search for a genuine grassroots democracy was an urgent driving force for the people who initiated the self-management movement in Eriksbo in Göteborg (see Papers I and V). A manifest by one of the founders of the co-operation in Eriksbo ends with the following sentences:
72
Democracy must be simple and down-to-earth. A kid growing up among wolfs will himself become a wolf in behaviour and norms. A kid growing up in a self-managed Eriksbo will become a human with a strong and invincible belief in his own and his comrades’ abilities to do good things!We create our society. NOW.(manifest by Widar Andersson, 1979, republished in Modh, 1988)
There is also literature with a more critical perspective on the interest in dif-ferent kinds of resident involvement, linking it to a political shift towards more market-oriented policies on privatisation and partnerships. Peterman (1996, p. 486) notes that “some cynical observers suggest that resident man-agement is a way of diverting attention from the serious state of public hous-ing and from the responsibility of government to provide decent housing for the poor.” As concluded by Murray Hawtin in a review of the British pro-gramme of ‘estate management boards’, they have won broad popularity as they seem to “offer a solution to different sections of the political spectrum. To the political right, they offer an opportunity to replace traditional democ-ratic structures; to the political left, they are seen as supporting and strength-ening democratic structures” (Hawtin, 1998, p. 263).
The potential for democracy effects has not been studied explicitly in the present research project. However, the ‘local resident democracy’ perspective connects to the issues of conflict and exclusion, which have been a central concern. The self-management manifest of Widar Andersson is appealing and certainly not irrelevant. However, my more pragmatic conclusion is that the power of current involvement initiatives to revolutionise the relationship be-tween society and its citizens from a short-term perspective is limited.
Economic aspects
It could be argued that all the effects described above have economic implica-tions. Healthy and thriving communities are generally regarded as economi-cally beneficial resources, at least rhetorically. There are also more traditional economic aspects of collective gardening elucidated in the literature, from a household perspective as well as a community or housing company manage-ment perspective. The most typical economic aspects from a household perspective take their departure in the added value of food production in the gardens. One core ob-jective for many of the community gardening programmes in the US is pov-erty reduction through providing poor households the opportunity to increase their food security, which has already been discussed. Connected to the food security issue is the issue of supplementing one’s income through selling home-produced vegetables. In Swedish studies of tenant involvement in open space management processes, the poverty alleviation perspective seems to be absent. Another possible economic effect of collective gardening, mentioned in several international studies, is that it may increase the property value of houses in the area, which can also be an important incentive for residents to become involved (see, e.g., Englander, 2001, p. 15; Aalbers, 2002, p. 60; Been & Voicu, 2006; Tranel & Handlin, 2006).
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 73
Turning to management economy aspects and a housing company perspec-tive, Swedish reports usually have more to say than foreign ones. Several Swedish studies of tenant involvement in open space management mention economic benefits in terms of saved management costs. One argument is that new resources are added when tenants become involved. This may result in a richer environment and improved upkeep, as well as reduced workloads and hence savings for the management organisation. Berglund et al. (1995) as-sessed the economic savings in six self-managed residential areas in Sweden at an average of 40% of the calculated ‘normal’ maintenance costs (p. 20). Citi-zen involvement in park management has also been promoted on an economic basis (see, e.g., Aalbers, 2002; Lawson, 2005, p. 265). Another argument is that littering and vandalism are reduced when tenants get involved, which also saves costs for the management organisation (see, e.g., Berglund et al., 1995; Alfredsson & Cars, 1996; Lindgren, 2005). From a housing management per-spective, yet another reason for a landlord to support collective gardening projects is to increase the quality of living and thereby make the residents stay longer, which is economically beneficial (see, e.g., Alfredsson & Cars, 1996; Baker, 2004, p. 322). This can also be compared to Tranel and Handlin’s (2006) GIS-based11 study indicating that proximity to a community garden statistically leads to more stable neighbourhoods attracting more investments. However, Bengtsson et al. (2003) conclude that anticipated economic savings from tenant involvement in open space management are very difficult to de-tect. Some reports also discuss the fact that participation processes often in-volve new types of costs, e.g., that they require a time investment and that new management approaches must be developed (e.g. Aalbers, 2002; Bengtsson et al., 2003).
Although the economic effects have not been studied in the present project, the roles of economic incentives for involvement, for both tenants and housing companies, are discussed in Papers I, II and III. It can be concluded that the economic gains are difficult to measure in a simple way as there are so many interconnected variables. Especially the long-term values of a potential impact on the area’s image are very hard to predict. Moreover, it can be discussed who the primary winners of a gentrification process are and whether there may also be losers (compare to discussions in Armstrong, 2000; Englander, 2001, p. 17).
Ecological aspects
Surprisingly enough, ecological aspects of collective gardening have not been highlighted much in the reviewed literature, except for some very general statements. One point of departure, which can be read between the lines in many writings on collective gardening, is that urban green spaces per se are ecologically beneficial – as they provide biological habitats in otherwise na-ture-hostile surroundings. Additional ‘ecological services’ from urban green spaces include, e.g., trees’ regulation of the local climate through offering shade from the sun or shelter from the wind, storing heat when it is cold, buff-ering against moisture and filtering the air (see, e.g., Tyrväinen et al., 2005).
11 Geographic Information System – a type of ‘method’ for storing and analysing (typically quantitative) data linked to geographic coordinates by help of computers.
74
Collective gardening is thus often promoted because it contributes with urban green spaces.
More specifically, food production from collective gardening has also been connected to ecological issues. For example, it has been mentioned that local food production can contribute to reduced transportation and hence lower emissions (Holland, 2004, p. 290). Another argument is that local urban food production is often carried out in a more environmentally friendly manner, e.g. with fewer chemicals and with integrated recycling of kitchen waste.
One aspect sometimes described as an ecological outcome of collective gardening is that awareness of ecological issues and respect for the living will evolve if more people are involved in or come into contact with gardening. A project with the primary purpose of increasing environmental awareness through involving residents in collective gardening activities was Grönskande levande gårdar (Green living yards) in Stockholm (see Paper I). Although the evaluation reports conclude that there has been a substantial progress in this regard, the presented results seem quite modest. About 10 to 20 per cent of the questionnaire respondents report that they have become better in things such as waste separation, energy saving, and purchasing eco-labelled products (Ericson, 2002, see also Cele, 2002).
Arguably, more significant ecological benefits derive from food production and the conversion of non-vegetated land into gardens. Neither food produc-tion nor planting on non-vegetated land has been present in the cases of ten-ant involvement in open space management studied in the current project, and it consequently seems likely that the potential is low for significant direct eco-logical gains. Other issues besides the ecological have been more central.
Conclusions
To summarise from this condensed overview of potential benefits, it can first be concluded that issues related to the social interplay between neighbours, together with issues related to improvements to the living environment and the area’s image appear to be highly central both in the literature on collective gardening in general and in the results from previous and current studies on tenant involvement in open space management. While certain aspects, such as food security and poverty alleviation, seem highly relevant in other contexts, they have no clear bearing on the Swedish tenant involvement processes stud-ied within this project. Other themes brought up in the literature, but appear-ing to be less important in terms of potential benefits of Swedish tenant in-volvement in open space management, are ecological issues, gender and eth-nic identity, recreation, restoration, learning, and the connection between lo-cal involvement and the ‘big democracy’ in society. In general, the effects stemming from garden activities and provision of a green urban space are not highlighted in the Swedish studies. Apparently, these issues are less relevant in the Swedish settings.
It is nonetheless obvious that there are many potential positive outcomes of tenant involvement in open space management. Environmental improvements and an area’s identity are generally important issues, even though the ‘magni-tude’ of the change is much greater when a rubbishy vacant lot in a dense city is turned into a lush garden than when a series of extra flower beds are planted on a grass lawn in an already green neighbourhood. In terms of poten-
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 75
tial benefits, the many issues connected to social networking seem particularly important. Interestingly, there is a high degree of correspondence between descriptions from previous case studies and my own case study results when it comes to how social networking is generated and which outcomes it can have in terms of, e.g., increased well-being, sense of safety, exchange of services, and capability to organise the local community. These universal mechanisms are essential for understanding the urge for social capital and togetherness, discussed in Section 3.2.2 as the Community Quest. “Only by working and living together,” Swedish ethnographer Åke Daun claims, “will people de-velop a community of experience, exclusivity towards the surrounding world and thereby a sense of rootedness and attachment in a social environment” (quoted in Hjärne, 1985, p. 156). However, while the potential benefits of ‘community-building’ are well documented, there is less focus in the literature on potential conflicts, which will be discussed in the following section.
3.3.3. Potential conflicts
Most of the reviewed literature gives the impression that everyone wins through collective gardening – those who are actively involved, of course, but also the local community as a whole including non-involved citizens and other actors such as landlords and municipalities. However, some of the articles and reports also bring different kinds of conflicts into the discussion.
In Bengtsson et al. (2003), one chapter (written by Jan-Erik Lind) is de-voted to a general discussion about the relationship between cooperation and conflict in tenant involvement processes. Referring to Cooley, Giddens and Sennet, Lind maintains that conflicts are inevitable elements of every social process, i.e. that patterns of cooperation and conflict are inextricably con-nected to each other. As one interviewed local housing manager says about the self-management initiative: “When more get active and the activities in-crease there will also be more conflicts” (Bengtsson et al., 2003, p. 277). The overall conclusion in the report, however, is that cooperation patterns are dominant over conflict patterns in the studied involvement processes and that existing conflicts are resolved efficiently through spontaneous and informal conflict management.
The conflict patterns discussed by Lind are conflicts within the involvement groups. Besides these kinds of internal conflicts, there are also examples in the literature of conflicts between the group of involved actors and others, such as landlords, authorities or citizens who are not members of the involvement group. However, the issue of conflict is never explored in depth in these stud-ies. The findings from the present research project, particularly from the case study in Angered (presented in Paper IV), therefore offer a valuable contribu-tion to the understanding of different kinds of conflicts in involvement proc-esses.
Conflicts may arise on different scales and may intersect with each other, which makes it difficult to define them clearly. The types of conflicts discussed below are presented in three broad categories: first, conflicts between grass-roots and authorities or landlords over land use; second, conflicts between involvement groups and non-involved parties, resulting in social exclusion; and third, conflicts and exclusion related to ethnicity, culture or life situation. These types of conflicts, or conflict perspectives, have been discussed in the
76
reviewed literature, as observed conflicts or as potential conflict patterns. A final subsection adds some reflections on conflicts and exclusion.
Land use competition
There are great differences between the studied contexts regarding the pres-sure fore new developments. In Berlin, which despite its dignity as a large European capital actually faces problems of a shrinking population, there is currently an abundance of unused land, at least on the outskirts of the city (Rosol, 2005). In New York City, the community garden movement grew strong by mobilising the public in their struggle to preserve gardens threat-ened by developers (see, e.g., Staeheli, Mitchell & Gibson, 2002). Secure ten-ure is still one of the highest prioritised issues for the community garden movements in the US. According to a survey carried out in the 1990s by the American Community Garden Association, only five per cent of the 6,000 identified community gardens were owned by the gardeners or by a land trust, which means that 95% had no permanent secure tenure (ACGA, 1998). Land use competition is natural in growing cities, and collective gardening is often not the strongest competitor when other interests are requesting development space.
Development interests are not necessarily represented by profit-seeking speculative private investors. In New York City, the main argument for the city council when deciding to sell out community garden lots has been the need for housing. There seems to be a conflict between different general in-terests: The municipal authorities emphasise the need for more affordable housing, while the community garden movement emphasises the need for gar-dens. Critics of the selling-out policy argue that there are many places without gardens which can be developed (see, e.g., Englander, 2001, p. 18). Moreover, the authorities have been accused of practicing a double standard as new de-velopments favour the white middle class rather than the most necessitous. On the other hand, there are also soul-searching attempts within the US commu-nity garden movement. For example, there is a self-critical discussion about the necessity to open up more gardens to the public, although the need for fences and locks is acknowledged (Schmelzkopf, 1995; Staeheli, Mitchell & Gibson, 2002).
The scale issue is particularly important when discussing land use conflicts. While the local community can benefit significantly from gaining direct con-trol of their territory, there may be conflicts of interest on a larger geographi-cal scale. For example, the preservation of open spaces may limit a city’s pos-sibility to grow in a concentrated way.
The studied tenant-managed residential yards are not directly exposed to development interests, although there is increasing pressure for the establish-ment of infill and densification projects in large Swedish cities. There are still many other areas in the cities to develop. Therefore, the land use conflicts are of a different kind than in, e.g., New York City – the competition is not be-tween residential yard and other functions, but possibly between different groups’ claims on how it should be used and managed. These issues will be discussed in the following subsections.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 77
Territorial domination and privatisation of public space
As discussed above, it is easy to get the impression from previous studies that non-involved residents seem to gain as much as those who are involved in open space management. For example, all residents living in an area where some build up a community garden will be able to benefit from aspects such as beautification, increased safety, a more positive area identity, and access to a nice, open space. However, it is necessary to reflect on the distribution of gains among the potential stakeholders. Although the voices of non-involved users or residents are not very present in the reviewed literature, some typical patterns of territorial domination and privatisation of public space can be dis-cerned.
Karen Schmelzkopf (1995) has studied community gardens in Loisaida (of-ficially the Lower East Side), described as a poor and deteriorated neighbour-hood on Manhattan. It was here that Liz Christy and other “Peace Corps-types from the post-flower power generation” started the Green Guerillas (p. 366). When the English term ‘community garden’ is used in the Swedish me-dia, it is often referring to one of the community gardens in Loisaida where residents have turned a vacant lot, filled with rubbish and social disorder, into a colourful and vivid place for relaxation and socialisation. However, all community gardens in Loisaida are fenced, and many are not accessible at all to visitors. Schmelzkopf points out the privatisation of public land as a typical source of conflict, and mentions that support organisations, such as the Green Guerillas and Operation GreenThumb, require that the gardens they help keep their gates open to the public at least once a week (Schmelzkopf, 1995, p. 376). On the other hand, the need for fencing must be understood in relation to the context of criminality and drug addiction in Loisaida. A main reason that many become involved in community gardening, according to Schmelzkopf, is to “have a safe outdoor place”. To forcibly keep drug dealers, thieves and homeless people out of the garden has been a prerequisite for keep it, and many even use barbed wire or thorny plants on top of the fence.
Hilda Kurtz (2001) refers to the origin of the word ‘garden’ as a word for enclosure, and raises the issue of potential exclusiveness and closure from the rest of society. She also reflects on the meanings associated with the term community, thinking of the often romanticising visions of re-creation of values lost during the process of modernisation. “While the relationship between place and community remains deeply ambiguous and contested, community continues to resonate as an idealized concept” (p. 661). Consequently, her findings suggest that “different ways of imagining and embodying both garden and community intersect with issues of enclosure and access, inclusion and exclusion, with important implications for how gardens are used to foster community and neighborhood revitalization” (Kurtz, 2001, p. 661).
Even without direct physical enclosure, places can be appropriated, domi-nated and ‘privatised’ by means of perception and social control. It is often argued, as a positive effect of involvement, that it gives residents a chance to appropriate their living spaces (see, e.g., Modh, 1998) – thereby transforming ‘malfunctioning’ public spaces, ‘ambi-territories’ or ‘no man’s land’ into semi-public territories. This implies, for example, making use of previously under-utilised spaces, replacing ‘disorderly’ activities with more respected ones, or marking out territorial claims in the physical environment. In many cases, the
78
process of appropriation seems uncontroversial – it is the local community’s rightful claim to a place in the city. However, if a certain group within the lo-cal community begins to dominate the use of the place, it can result in exclu-sion not only of ‘strangers’ and ‘disorderly’ but also of other local inhabitants. Thereby, semi-public is transformed into semi-private and this can be seen as a process of privatisation.
Although the positive image of appropriation is by far the most dominant in the literature on tenant involvement in open space management and other forms of collective gardening, there are some critical reflections as well. If studied only on a community level, Glover (2004) argues, the important aspect of how social capital is distributed within the community will be missed. Some residents in his case study area viewed the core group of residents involved in the community garden as “an exclusive group of residents committed only by their own ends” (p. 152). One of the interviewees also raises the concern that people who do not fit into certain dominating ideals may be oppressed by the control of the core group of involved residents. Unfortunately, the details are not explained. Alfredsson and Cars (1996, p. 47) mention that some residents who do not want to participate feel that they are under pressure by those in-volved:
“On almost every yard there is someone or some who experience that those who are active in the self-management groups take too much command over things. Several feel excluded, and they ask for information and a more open attitude from those who are currently active.”
Such domination effects also seem to be present on one of the yards in Olsson, Sondén and Ohlander’s (1997) study of the small neighbourhood – actually, precisely the yard where residents are involved in the management. Some of the interviewees “feel left out” and experience that “there is a sense of cohe-sion […] which for different reasons one cannot or does not want to be a part of, but which places hinders to using the yard” (p. 66). This is also expressed in the following way:
“There are some strenuous people living here with a strong feeling for order, who often over-emphasise the idea of fairness and the visual appearance on behalf of those who do not have the energy and who do not feel involved. This may have as an effect a dull mood, a sense of supervision and that many of those who already feel left out feel even more left out.” (Olsson, Sondén & Ohlander, 1997, p. 133)
As found in the Angered case study, togetherness practice on the yards is clearly connected to territorial domination by the group of those involved, which can result in others avoiding using the yard (see Paper IV). However, the results also show that there is an opposite effect as well – that togetherness practice can encourage people to use the yard more. This can be compared to Delshammar’s discussion about citizen-managed parks. He sees a risk in citi-zens’ involvement possibly hindering others from accessing the place, but also argues that it can increase the accessibility through bringing life and vitality (Delshammar, 2005, p. 134; 2006, p. vi). While more public settings involve a stronger component of ‘protection needs’ (in extreme cases motivating fences and walls), the territorial claims on the studied residential yards involve a more subtle set of exclusion mechanisms. In these cases the exclusion of non-
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 79
involved parties is often not instrumental, but is rather an unforeseen (and even unwanted) side effect of togetherness practice.
Conflicts related to ethnicity, culture, or life situation
Closely related to the potential exclusion of non-involved residents, or rather examples of such exclusion, are conflicts between groups defined upon ethnic, cultural or life-situational identities. Some examples of such conflicts can be found in the literature. The community garden studied by Glover (mentioned above) has traditionally been perceived as “the white people’s club” (Glover, 2004, p. 152). According to his interviewees, the racial divide between whites and African Americans (which was the case there) was connected to underly-ing group solidarity with historical roots and was reproduced in the tensions between criminal networks and the police. Similarly, Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny (2004) present results that contest the common suggestion that com-munity gardening facilitates integration between minorities and cross-cultural connections. Most of their studied ‘Latino community gardens’, dominated by Puerto Ricans, instead seemed to be rather homogenous in their ethnic com-position, and enforcing the prevailing mono-ethnic identities of their neighbourhoods. Aalbers (2002) notes that immigrants, as well as poorer and less educated households, are under-represented in the self-management groups of Utrecht.
Bengtsson, Svensson and Uggla (2000) give advice to involvement groups on how to deal with different problems. However, when it comes to the prob-lem of lacking representation of immigrants, they “call for great humility re-garding what is feasible to do, and certainly there are no simple solutions” (p. 200). One reason is that there are macro-structures of ethnic discrimination in society; another is that there may be cultural differences in the view of organi-sations, responsibilities and social interaction. Consequently, imbalances in the ethnic representation of an involvement group may result in conflict struc-tures which cannot be fully resolved on the local level.
Another common type of conflict between different resident groups is con-nected to age and life situation – more specifically the general interest conflict between children’s need to play and the elderly’s preference for quietness and orderliness. Many reports discussing the need of open green spaces near the home emphasise that the two most important groups to satisfy are small chil-dren and seniors. One reason for this is that these groups are less mobile than others. For example, Berglund and Jergeby (1989, p. 6) write:
We have chosen to examine children and pensioners, because these groups spend a large part of their days in their residential areas. In general, they have more time than others to be outdoors, but at the same time, they are also more limited when it comes to managing hinders and problems in the environment. Changes in the form of, e.g., reduced open space and increased traffic caused by new developments, presumably affect these groups more than others.
Children have also been in focus as outdoor activities are important for their motor, intellectual and social development. To enhance this, children should be able to run, climb, balance, jump, find their own spaces, explore things, move things around, etc. (see, e.g., Grahn et al., 1997). Children are also typi-cally the most frequent users of residential open spaces. Berglund et al. (1993,
80
p. 58) conclude from a study of a collective house that “10 children spend more time in the yard than 100 adults”.
The needs of older people, however, are of a different character. The op-portunity to sit down and enjoy a nice view is often important to them, and it is not strange that older people’s wish to have a calm and orderly environment comes into conflict with children’s play. As Berglund et al. (1993, p. 58) write: “There is an inherent contradiction between the wish to have it beautiful like this, and to give the children freedom to play, to try and experiment and train their bodies, when the space is so limited”. However, the authors claim that this contradiction has been solved fairly well at the studied yard through the creation of several places for adults, but actually no particular place for chil-dren. The children find ways to use the yard without a dominant playground, even though more play equipment and a greater robustness of the yard’s physical design might be desirable. Age conflicts have also been reported in several other case studies. At one yard in Göteborg, managed by a group of older residents, “the needs of the children are easily neglected when the main issue is to keep it nice and tidy” (Bengtsson et al., 2003, p. 178). The authors’ reflection is that it is problematic if an involvement group is dominated by a specific age group, something which is rather common.
In the interviews with non-involved residents in Angered several types of conflicts were revealed, some of which are analysed in Paper IV. The general conceptual divide12 in Swedish society between ‘immigrants’ and ‘Swedes’ unfolded in the interviews in terms of sweeping generalisations and preju-dices. At the B yard, this divide also corresponded to some of the tensions between involved and non-involved residents. Life situation or age-related interest conflicts appeared to be a cause for tension at the D yard, where fami-lies with children were dominant in the involvement group. A third main type of conflict detected was more connected to lifestyle and was accentuated through the habit of smoking, which was apparently an important dimension of the cohesion and tension at the B yard. Fourth, several conflicts discussed in the area were related to diverging opinions on how the yards should be de-signed, especially regarding the preservation or cutting down of trees. While some of the conflicts are more clearly outcomes of place-related and situa-tionally generated issues – how the yard should be managed and used – the ethnic tensions rather seem to emerge from general underlying misconcep-tions.
Concluding remarks on conflicts, social exclusion and segregation
When discussing conflicts in terms of challenges it is important to establish that conflicts, generally speaking, are a necessary component of any social dynamic, and that conflicts of different kinds are often constructive in that they can lead to positive development from a longer perspective. A conflict-free relationship is hard to imagine, and a society without conflict would be a strange kind of society. As discussed in Paper IV, it is likely that involvement
12 “Divide” may perhaps seem to be a hard notion. In many places and in many situations, there are no clear tensions between ‘Swedes’ and ‘immigrants’. However, as concluded by the governmental commission on power integration and structural discrimination, Swedish society is impregnated by an underlying categorisation of its citizens into these two groups (SOU 2006:79).
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 81
processes may canalise underlying tensions and become a focal point for con-flicts. However, this is not necessarily something we should fear. Rather the opposite; under the right conditions, such conflicts can well play a role in opening ‘black boxes’ and breaking some of the deadlocks which hinder de-velopment. Even from a social robustness perspective, conflicts can be con-tributive under certain conditions, in the same way as confrontation with the Other is a necessary step to overcome prejudices. Having said this, conflicts are still a challenge and can be highly problematic from a sustainable devel-opment perspective if they lead to social exclusion.
There are different types of conflicts in different kinds of spaces. An impor-tant parameter in the discussions above is that it concerns semi-publicneighbourhood settings. Considering Madanipour's distinction between the interpersonal and impersonal domains, it could be argued that the neighbour-hood setting can actually be more socially dynamic than the classical urban public space: People will co-exist on the central town square, but will interact more on the residential yard. However, this argument must be connected to the issue of social mixture. Conflicts will occur as a result of congestion around a shared open space, but also as a result of heterogeneity in identifica-tions, lifestyles, opinions and worldviews.
The issue of cultural homogeneity and heterogeneity as conditions for in-volvement connects to the issue of ethnic and socio-economic residential seg-regation. Contrary to those who advocate for vigorous efforts to counteract segregation, Olsson, Sondén and Ohlander even venture to recommend more clustering of ethnic groups in Swedish housing areas. One of the last para-graphs in their book Det lilla grannskapet (The small neighbourhood, 1997) reads:
Another problematic is associated with the immigrant issue. Not because immigrant would be less capable to function well but because some residen-tial areas have too high share of immigrants and because the mixture of lan-guages and cultures gets too high. No clear norm structure is created and sus-tained, which for example has as a consequence a typically restless situation among youth. There are also great problems with identification of people and groups as well as with communication. It results in unsafety and discom-fort. Nobody thinks this situation is good. Everyone – both Swedes and im-migrants – want a change. Immigrants want contacts with Swedes and with their own group – not with other immigrants. (Olsson, Sondén & Ohlander, 1997, p. 218)
The authors acknowledge that this kind of argumentation is controversial in Sweden, where mixture and anti-segregation are traditionally the politically correct ethos (see, e.g., Bergsten & Holmqvist, 2007). Roger Andersson (2009) shows that the residential ethnic segregation is indeed increasing in Göteborg, which he describes as disastrous. Residential segregation causes injustice and class divisions, but the converse is also true, and there are feed-back loops which lead the development into a vicious circle. Andersson argues that strong measures must be taken, to build a higher mixture of tenures and house-prices as well as to counteract income gaps and marginalisation of the poor. Given the building structure and tenure forms in an area, the possibili-ties for a housing company to influence the composition of residents are lim-ited but not non-existent. Through renovations and marketing, new groups can be attracted. ‘Unwanted’ groups can be sorted out in the letting process.
82
In several cases described as successful revitalisation processes, one strategy has been to eradicate social problems by applying stricter codes of conduct and evicting many ‘disturbing’ tenants (see, e.g., Alfredsson & Cars, 1996; Törnquist, 2001, p. 95). However efficient this strategy may be from a local community perspective, it can also be questioned, as it presumptively will not solve the problems from a societal perspective but will only move them some-where else. Segregation problematics must be solved on a structural level, as Andersson argues (see also discussion on residential segregation in Thematic paper E).
On the other hand, ‘society’ cannot be disconnected from its parts, and each neighbourhood is a representation of the society it is a part of. There-fore, reasonably, long-term solutions to the problem of social divides should not only be sought through structural measures addressing residential segrega-tion; the problem should also be addressed on local levels, with measures counteracting social exclusion within the neighbourhoods.
3.4. Conditions for involvement and the role of management With some important challenges in terms of potential conflicts and the risk of social exclusion identified, the first part of the section (3.4.1) will discuss the conditions for tenant involvement in terms of factors supporting or hindering the initiation and institutionalisation of the processes. In the second part of the section (3.4.2), the questions are raised of who can influence these factors and how.
3.4.1. Factors influencing tenant involvement
Olsson, Sondén and Ohlander (1997) highlight three types of factors which constitute the fundamental conditions for how social life can develop in a neighbourhood: (a) the physical environment, i.e. how the spatial structures allow or restrict movements and meetings and how the environment per se affects identity and well-being; (b) the population, i.e. the cultural and social patterns created as a result of the individuals living in the area, and how dif-ferent socio-economic and demographic structures shape identities and well-being; and (c) the management organisation, i.e. how tasks and responsibilities are divided between different actors in the management organisation and which formal and informal opportunities the residents have to influence their living conditions. These three factors are also relevant for the functioning of involvement processes. Closely related to these factors are the three types of area conditions discussed in Paper II: physical, demographic and organisa-tional. In the following subsections, the same three dimensions will be dis-cussed in relation to findings from the case study in Angered and the litera-ture review on collective gardening.
Physical (spatial) factors
In Paper II, it is concluded that occurrence of involvement processes is not clearly dependent on geographic location in the city. As established on page 49 above, tenant involvement in open space management is neither strictly an
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 83
inner-city nor a suburb phenomenon; it occurs all around the city of Göteborg. On the other hand, a point discussed in Paper II is that a vague pattern of clustering can be discerned, i.e. that the processes do not appear to be evenly or randomly spread out but are partly concentrated to certain areas. The issue of geographical location of involvement processes is not discussed in the lit-erature. However, the case study in Angered lends support to one of the rea-sons for the clustering effect discussed in Paper II: That one successful in-volvement process can trigger tenants on other yards in the same area to initi-ate their own processes. The other reason, that engaged local managers may inspire many processes to start within their management area, is a logical con-sequence of the local managers’ strategic role, which will be discussed further below.
Another issue discussed in Paper II is the significance of the spatial enclo-sure of the yard. No clear relationship between yard enclosure and involve-ment could be traced through the survey, despite indications in the literature as well as from respondents that it should be an important factor. It seems reasonable that enclosure of the yard facilitates the appropriation process and thereby the formation of social networks as well as involvement. But, perhaps spatial enclosure must be studied on a much more subtle level than what can be read from a map or even a satellite photo. Topography and vegetation can provide effective demarcations of a yard. A low fence or revetment can often be enough to mark the border to a public street or pathway, if the character of the yard does not invite outsiders to use it as a public asset.
The spatial configuration inside the yard can also be discussed; framing the movements and views and thereby influencing the level of publicness. Condi-tions for spontaneous meetings are generally recognised as a factor influenc-ing social interaction. More structural analyses of movements and meetings, e.g. by using space syntax or similar models on residential area levels, have not been reviewed. However, on a detailed level, some studies have described how contact-making is facilitated by, e.g., semi-private front yards, where it is possible to “be at home and available for neighbour contact at the same time” (Berglund, 1996, p. 83). Nice benches by the entrances, balconies with a view over the yard, common laundry facilities, etc., can all contribute to increasing the number of spontaneous meetings between neighbours, which was also confirmed in the Angered case study. These design issues can be connected to Jan Gehl’s (Gehl, 1971; Gehl, Brack & Thornton, 1977) conceptualisations of the importance of interfaces between private and public spaces in the city (see Thematic paper D). Confirming Gehl’s results, which are mainly based on studies carried out in urban cores, Olsson, Sondén and Ohlander (1997) show how people’s social life suffers in some suburban residential areas due to a lack of intermediate spaces between the private and the public. For example, the ‘yard’ of one eight-story house is poorly designed and ‘de-privatised’ by its function as a passage for the public; its staircase is also not a place for meet-ings, as it is narrow, lacks places to sit and is acoustically problematic.
Independent of the layout of the yard, it is concluded in Paper II that the yard seems to be the natural unit for involvement processes. As pointed out in Thematic paper D, the residential yard is more or less per definition set up as club territory for a limited number of residents. One of its key roles is its fea-ture of being an arena for spontaneous meetings between the neighbours liv-ing around it, which forms a basis for social networking. Moreover, the yard
84
also constitutes an object of interest for the residents. Influencing this object of shared interest is a natural starting point for conversation and perhaps col-lective action – the initiation of an involvement process.
The size of the yard may also be of importance. In Paper II, the area of the yards is discussed. However, the number of apartments sharing it is perhaps even more relevant. It could be assumed that a relatively small area or hous-ing unit would facilitate networking and collective action better than a very large area. For example, Olsson, Sondén and Ohlander (1997; see also Olsson, 1985) define the small neighbourhood of about 10–40 persons as an optimal level for achieving a well-functioning social structure. As discussed in Paper III, normal sizes of ‘local area management units’ are between 200 and 400 apartments, but the yard units handled by involvement processes are typically 50–100 apartments (see Paper II; also compare to Berglund et al., 1995; Al-fredsson & Cars, 1996). This can be compared to the average number of those active in the formal involvement processes in Göteborg of between five and ten people.
Demographic factors
As concluded in Paper II, the areas where there are formal involvement proc-esses have quite different profiles in terms of census statistics. It is pointed out that a third of the places can be characterised as ethnically diverse, with many children and lower socio-economic status, while another third have a small proportion of immigrants but relatively high education levels and socio-economic status (see also Figure 13 above). The remaining third, however, is still very diverse. This is actually interesting, as involvement is often theoreti-cally connected to the conditions for social inter-relations and the cultural attributes of the inhabitants. Some preconceptions of linkages between demo-graphic conditions and involvement in the literature are discussed already in Paper II, and some thoughts will be added to the discussion here. Table 6 summarises the conclusions from two previous literature reviews on how demographic variables can affect neighbour contacts. One review is from Sweden and is based on studies from the 1970s, while the other is international and is based on studies mainly from the 1990s.
Some reservations must be noted regarding this overview. First, involve-ment in social networks does not necessarily follow the same patterns as in-volvement in open space management, even though interest in local social contacts has been mentioned as a predictor of participation in different types of local community processes (e.g. Glover, Shinew & Parry, 2005). Second, the lists are based on research from partly different times and contexts, which may explain the relatively high level of disparity. Third, they are also highly simpli-fied, using a series of generalising dichotomies which do not perfectly describe the complexity of local settings. Even so, they work as a point of departure to which other suggestions can be related.
Obviously, the two reviews came to diametrically opposite results regarding the four factors at the top, which is interesting. While Hjärne concluded that ethnic minorities, working class and unemployed were less likely to have many social contacts with their neighbours, Dekker and Bolt’s review show that these groups generally develop more local social networks. A parallel confu-sion can be found in studies of collective gardening. Low representation of
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 85
ethnic minorities in involvement processes is sometimes discussed as a prob-lem (e.g. Aalbers, 2002; Glover, 2004; Lind, 2005). In other studies, though, ethnic minorities take the initiative and the collective gardening projects are described as a means for the empowerment of discriminated groups (e.g. Giraud, 1990; Baker, 2004; Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2004; Rosol, 2005). In a similar way, some studies show collective gardening as a typical phenome-non of poor neighbourhoods (e.g. Alfredsson & Cars, 1996; Bartolomei et al., 2003; Glover, 2003; Baker, 2004), while others suggest that it is more uncom-mon for poor households and poor communities to be involved (Aalbers, 2002). The general over-representation of women in collective gardening processes corresponds to both lists above, but there are also examples of gar-dens dominated by men. It is clear that the local context must be considered to be able to hypothesise which groups will be likely to become involved.
Although a rich mixture of cultures is sometimes described as an asset for an area and for involvement processes, it is also often suggested that hetero-geneity is a hindering factor to harmonious social interaction (see, e.g., Smets, 2005; Dekker, 2007). In spite of all the tributes to cross-cultural networking and bridging social capital in citizen involvement processes, cultural homoge-neity may be an important factor for success in reality, at least according to some of the case studies on collective gardening (see also page 81 above and discussions on social capital in Thematic paper B).
Table 6. Factors predicting more (+) or fewer (–) neighbour contacts. Com-pilation of two previous literature reviews (Hjärne, 1985; Dekker & Bolt, 2005).
Factor Hjärne, 1985 Dekker & Bolt, 2005
Minority ethnicities – +
Lower income – +
Lower education – +
Unemployed – +
Females + +
Families with children + +
Higher age no data +
Lived in area for long time + +
Homeowners no data +
Multi-family houses - no data
Densely populated areas - no data
Cities and towns - no data
86
Organisational factors
Olsson, Sondén and Ohlander (1997, p.62) conclude that the management organisation is an important and often neglected factor, shaping the condi-tions for social interaction in general. The present project has tried to look more closely into these aspects. Paper III examines the management organisa-tion from the housing companies’ point of view. It suggests that the manage-ment organisation is partly a result of the housing company’s general man-agement approaches, which also may influence the occurrence of involvement processes. In Paper II, it is concluded that the housing company and its ap-proach to tenant involvement form a very important factor determining how the process is arranged, and probably also strongly influencing its initiation and institutionalisation. Three types of organisational arrangements for the formal involvement processes in Göteborg are presented in the paper, and they all depend largely on the housing company.
Special attention is paid to the role of local managers in both Papers II and III. It is concluded that local managers appear to play a significant role in many of the involvement processes, as a link between the tenant groups and the housing company. In some cases, though, the tenant groups are highly autonomous and relatively independent of the support of local managers. Some interviewed involved tenants even argued that they felt discouraged by the housing company’s representatives. More often, however, local managers played an important and supportive role, sometimes even in the initiation of the process. This finding confirms what is commonly stressed in the literature (Alfredsson & Cars, 1996; Bengtsson et al., 2003). Aalbers (2002) also empha-sises the role of area-based local managers with social engagement, positive attitudes and good communication skills, even though her cases concern mu-nicipally owned open spaces. She points at potential communication problems in situations in which there are no local managers or the local managers have inappropriate attitudes or insufficient skills (p. 60). Tunstall (2001) discusses the distinction between participation, which refers to the involvement of resi-dents in decision-making and management, and devolution, which refers to structural decentralisation within the housing management organisation (see also Thematic paper C). She concludes that true participation is dependent on devolution, so that responsibilities and decision-making power are relocated from central to local units, i.e. closer to the tenants. In line with several Swed-ish reports (e.g., Bengtsson, Svensson & Uggla, 2000; Bengtsson et al., 2003; Lind, 2005), Tunstall (2001) points out the importance of developing good personal relations between local management staff and residents to succeed in involvement processes. Moreover, it is argued that local staff must be given high autonomy. Among the possible roles of local managers in involvement processes is also offering advice in issues concerning gardening or organisa-tion, and sometimes helping to solve conflicts, or actively interfering when there are problems.
Another important actor in many of the tenant involvement processes is the Swedish Union of Tenants (Hyresgästföreningen). It holds a strong posi-tion in the rental housing sector, as it is the tenants’ only official part in central rent negotiations. In the mid-1980s, a central framework agreement was signed between the Union of Tenants and the Swedish Association of Munici-pal Housing Companies (SABO & HGF, 1986), and later a similar agreement
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 87
was also signed with the Swedish Property Federation, representing private landlords. On the residential area level, local branches of the Union of Ten-ants are often the organisational body for involvement in open space man-agement, or are directly associated with the involvement group. However, there are some cases in which there has been a kind of competition and mu-tual suspicion between groups involved in open space management and local branches of the Union of Tenants (see, e.g., Bengtsson et al., 2003).
In other countries, the institutional map is often more diverse. The Parks and People Foundation in Baltimore suggest that a good institutional struc-ture for involving citizens in open space management consists of three actors in partnership: the grassroots group leading and organising the process, an NGO or local authority offering technical assistance and support, and a prop-erty owner (typically a land trust). Actually, in the US there is a well-developed infrastructure for the support of collective gardening, at least in several states and cities (see, e.g., Parks & People Foundation, 2000). In New York, the municipal GreenThumb programme has provided technical, mate-rial and educational support to community gardens since the 1970s, and there are several non-governmental organisations and land trusts that contribute in different ways (see, e.g., Lieberg & Schmidtbauer, 2001). These kinds of sup-port organisations may fulfil some of the roles ascribed to housing company local managers above. For example, Baker (2004, p. 320) describes how a community garden support organisation mediated to solve conflicts between different factions in a tenant gardening group as well as between the group and the housing management company. Inspired by New York’s community garden movement as well as Swedish experiences of tenant involvement in open space management, Lieberg and Schmidtbauer (2001) suggest that mu-nicipal park management in Sweden must “develop from having the role of authority to a more distinct service role, where the central focus is the desires and needs of the citizen.”
A related issue discussed in Paper IV is the level of formality within in-volvement processes. This differs between different types of contexts. In many studies of collective gardening, formal contracts and cooperation between landowners and citizens are hardly discussed. Many involvement groups seem to work rather autonomously and without clear agreements on responsibili-ties, and in some cases it appears to be a matter of illegal land occupation. In the Utrecht study, however, as in several Swedish studies, contracting proce-dures and formal organisational structures are at the core of the analyses. The routines also vary from case to case. Some described Swedish involvement processes have advanced institutional setups, as in the case of the cooperation in Eriksbo (Modh, 1988; Törnquist, 2001; Lind, 2005). In other cases, such as the yard associations within the housing company Poseidon in Göteborg, the formal requirements are low and most cooperation between the landlord and the residents is informal (see, e.g., Papers II and IV). As concluded in Paper II, there seems to be a general connection between formalisation (regarding agreements, meeting procedures, activity reports, economic transactions, etc.) on the one hand and autonomy and activities on the other. Highly autono-mous involvement groups taking a comprehensive responsibility for the man-agement are normally formalised, while informal processes are normally less autonomous and engage in a limited set of responsibilities. This is natural, as the transfer of responsibilities from the housing company to the tenants be-
88
comes clearer, more definite and less questionable if it is formalised and if bureaucratic procedures are introduced. However, there are also informal involvement processes with relatively high autonomy that take responsibility for a broad range of management tasks. Moreover, there is always a certain amount of informality in formal arrangements as well.
Yet another related issue discussed in Paper II is the role of economic compensation as an incentive for tenants to become involved in open space management. Different models for compensation are used in different places, and in some cases there is no compensation at all to involved tenants. The significance of economic incentives is contested. It is interesting to note that Poseidon has a large number of formal involvement processes (organised as so-called yard associations), but does not reward involved individuals with direct economic compensation, which is otherwise the norm. Berglund et al. (1995, p. 15) conclude that economic incentives often play a more significant role in the initiation phase. As the process becomes established and matures, they argue, economic incentives will be successively replaced with other mo-tives, such as togetherness and other forms of social exchange. In other cases, the compensation seems to play an important role in well-established in-volvement processes. For example, Jan-Erik Lind states that the reduction of the economic compensation to involved tenants in Eriksbo, justified by the new taxation policies in the mid-1990s, was one of the reasons why most of them left their commissions (Lind, 2005, p. 117). Another aspect of economic compensation, discussed by Olsson, Sondén and Ohlander (1997, pp. 134-135), is that it would legitimise tenants who like gardening to practice their hobby. According to the authors, some informally involved tenants expressed that their neighbours watched them with suspicion when they tended the flower beds, and that they received comments like ‘Why are you doing the company’s work?’. The authors claim that “the economic compensation may function as a symbol for a transformation of responsibilities and thereby allow people to do something they are interested in.” Studies in other countries sometimes dis-cuss the potential of increased property values as an important economic in-centive for residents who are involves in open space management. Glover (2004, p. 151) has found proof for such incentives in interviews with involved residents. On the other hand, there are apparently also times when tenants actually pay to get involved, in these cases in individual garden lots (e.g. Bar-tolomei et al., 2003; Baker, 2004).
3.4.2. Which factors can be influenced and by whom?
A number of aspects have been discussed above about how certain factors in the physical environment, the demographic composition and the organisa-tional frameworks may either support or impede the initiation and establish-ment of involvement processes. The issue partly connects to the question of why people become involved, which is addressed on page 51. Utilitarian mo-tives are emphasised as important for the initiation of involvement processes, and it could be assumed that a belief in the possibility to make a change and improve things in the area is crucial for the willingness to become involved. Reconnecting to the three categories above, a belief in the possibility to make a change is arguably based on: (a) the identification of manageable problems in the physical environment; (b) trust in one’s own and others’ abilities and
RESULTS & DISCUSSION · 89
the availability of necessary resources (time and skills) within the collective of tenants in the area; and (c) the absence of obstructions in the legal and mana-gerial structures. Obviously, there will never be a ‘recipe’ of factors which will automatically give birth to successful involvement processes – it always even-tually comes down to the social relations between particular individuals, and it is never possible to predict exactly where and how an involvement process will occur. However, some of the factors discussed above may still have a signifi-cant influence.
The natural questions following on these discussions are who has the means to influence these factors and how this can be done. Some of the factors men-tioned are import in regard to planning of new housing developments but less relevant when discussing management of existing areas: notably the geo-graphical location, the size and proportions of the yard, and other aspects of the area’s spatial morphology. The demographic composition is also difficult to address as a management issue, especially from a short-term perspective. Housing policies and urban planning have an important task in counteracting residential segregation, but as discussed above, this does not have much to do with providing good conditions for tenant involvement (even though tenant involvement may play a role in coping with some of the problems connected to segregation). When it comes to existing urban areas, it is first and foremost the organisational factors which can be easily addressed, and in the context of Swedish rental housing areas it has already been concluded that the housing company and its management staff are the key actors.
Involvement processes can be understood as complex systems, not only be-ing influenced by external factors, but also dynamically being shaped and re-shaped in the interplay between the tenants and the yards they manage. In other words, there are feedback mechanisms of different kinds. Successful self-organisation rewards the involved with self-esteem which strengthens and the process and contributes to its further development. Failures, on the other hand, are more likely to hamper the engagement.
What is success and what is failure, however, depends on perspective. The benefits produced may be unequally distributed within the local community, and what some describe as a successful involvement process may be a failure in the eyes of others (see Paper IV). In Section 3.3.3, the risk for social exclu-sion is identified as a key challenge. It can partly be related to factors which lay beyond the direct influence of tenant groups, management staff and other local actors – factors such as residential segregation and structural discrimina-tion. However, the concrete manifestations of exclusion always take place in the social interplay between local actors. Therefore, the local actors can also take measures to ameliorate the situation if there are conflicts and exclusion. One example of this is the special efforts made by the cooperation in Eriksbo when they realised that immigrants were marginalised in their organisation in the late 1990s: they carried out a survey to map out problems and attitudes and they started an innovation group and opened a special meeting place for immigrants (Lind, 2005, pp. 117-118).
Section 4.1.3 below continues this discussion by elaborating some possible strategies for dealing with exclusion in involvement processes from a housing management perspective.
90
CONCLUSIONS
The first part of the conclusion chapter (Section 4.1) summarises the main results from the project in regard to the research questions. The second part (Section 4.2) discusses some wider implications of the findings, reconnecting to the broader issues of urban green space, participation and local communi-ties presented in the introduction.
4.1. Tenant involvement in open space man-agement and sustainable development The overarching research question throughout the project is how tenant in-volvement in open space management can contribute to sustainable develop-ment in Swedish rental housing areas. This broad question will be addressed here in three steps:
1. How can the notion of sustainable development be understood in the context of tenant involvement in open space management in Swedish rental housing areas?
2. Which effects can these processes have in regard to sustainable devel-opment? Which are the key opportunities and challenges?
3. Which management strategies can be suggested as a response to the identified challenges?
4.1.1. Sustainable development in context
How can sustainable development be interpreted in the contexts of tenant involvement processes and open space management in Swedish rental housing areas? As discussed in Thematic paper A, the intellectual construct of sustain-able development contains a goal (development) and a proviso (sustainabil-
CONCLUSIONS · 91
ity). The goal of development, applying an anthropocentric approach, is about meeting human needs, ultimately aiming at diminishing suffering and increas-ing life quality for the world’s inhabitants. The proviso of sustainability stipu-lates conditions under which the development can take place, so that the pos-sibilities for future generations to meet their needs are not threatened. This includes preservation of ecological systems, economisation of finite resources, political and economic stability, etc. Sustainable development issues must be addressed both locally and globally. However, each issue has particular scales and contexts, and each actor, societal level or context has its particular key issues. Swedish rental housing areas are a place context with certain dominat-ing sustainable development issues. Tenant involvement in open space man-agement frames an ‘action context’ with the potential to address some of these issues more than others.
The ultimate goal in the management of any urban neighbourhood must reasonably be to provide good living conditions for the inhabitants and thus enhance their life quality. Good living conditions is a broad notion. In this case, it refers to conditions in the neighbourhood’s physical and social envi-ronment which provide good opportunities for the satisfaction of human needs: to feel safe, feel at home, relax, socialise, do physical activities, etc. – or in other words: to enjoy living. All human needs are not met on the neighbourhood level, however. Some of them, e.g. to love and be loved, are typically met on a more private level while others, e.g. to have a secure food supply, are generally more integrated into larger-scale societal systems. For some people, the neighbourhood plays a lesser role in fulfilling their needs, as they rely more on opportunities provided within families or outside the neighbourhood. For others, however, the neighbourhood and local commu-nity play a significant role. Due to these differences, and because neighbour-hood resources are typically shared by many, there is no simple way to define the basis on which a fair distribution of these resources would be made. There may also be others besides the residents of a neighbourhood who have claims or interests in using the land resources, which further complicates the ques-tion. The land use issues from this broader perspective will be discussed later. Here, the context is delimited to the neighbourhood itself, the people living there and their aspirations on good living conditions.
The proviso complicates the path towards the goal by stipulating that the system must retain its capacity over time and be able to handle unforeseen challenges. There are many problems associated with Swedish rental housing areas, which result in impaired living conditions and high vulnerability to fur-ther reduction in life quality. Many of the most alarming problems, however, are mainly caused by external impacts connected to macro economical and political structures of regional, national or even global levels: e.g., unemploy-ment, income and ethnic segregation, and cutbacks in public services. These issues are of high significance, but are difficult to address on a local area man-agement level. Nevertheless, local involvement initiatives and participative management have often been used successfully as means to improve the living conditions even in highly deprived neighbourhoods. Issues handled in these initiatives are, e.g., safety, identity, social contacts and direct environmental improvements. Besides enhancing the living conditions in the neighbourhood and improving the life quality, particularly for the involved, many of the out-comes also relate to social robustness, which is an important aspect of sustain-
92
able development. Social robustness can be defined as the capability of a community to resist stress, survive and thrive under changing and adverse con-ditions with the help of its social networks and norms.
In relation to tenant involvement in open space management in Swedish rental housing areas, sustainable development can thus be understood as a vision of good living conditions and a socially robust local community.
4.1.2. Effects of involvement processes
The next question is which effects tenant involvement in open space manage-ment can have on sustainable development – i.e. on good living conditions and social robustness – in Swedish rental housing areas. As is shown in Section 3.3, this question raises complex sets of interrelated issues. To extract a more con-densed conclusion, three main areas of effects will be addressed here: effects on the functionality of the yards, on neighbour relations and on the area’s im-age. These areas do not cover all possible effects of tenant involvement in open space management, but they do cover what most significantly affects living conditions and social robustness. It is not only important to define whatis affected, but also from whose perspective. For example, effects can be un-derstood differently depending on whether you view them from the perspec-tive of residents involved in the management, of other residents in the area, or of the housing company. These three perspectives will structure the discussion below, acknowledging that there are numerous other possible perspectives, including those of different social groups, organisations, authorities, or even individual actors.
Effects on the functionality of the yard
The physical environment of the yard plays a fundamental role in providing good living conditions for the residents. It constitutes an arena for different kinds of activities: places for children’s play, sitting, eating, meeting, celebra-tions, gardening, restoration, etc. It also affects humans via sensory impres-sions and through its symbolic values. The case study in Angered indicates that the first thing residents involved in open space management tend to do is plant flowers in the yard, which confirms a common statement in the litera-ture; it appears that more greenery and more flowers are always high priori-ties. The most commonly expressed reason for residents to initiate involve-ment processes is that they want a more attractive physical environment. As Kristensson (2003) argues, viewing the yard is also a way of using it.
Involvement processes also typically lead to the addition of different func-tions: cultivation lots, benches to sit on and talk, grills, play-sets, etc. Few, if any, studies of involvement processes discuss the removal of functions. In-stead, they describe increased variety and diversity in terms of both form and function, which also corresponds to the case study findings. As the involved residents can influence the content and design of their yard, it will logically be more adapted to their demands. This is also one plausible reason why the ac-tive use of the yard tends to increase as a result of involvement processes; an-other reason is that the involvement activities per se imply use of the yard; and yet another reason is the social effects, which will be discussed below.
Non-involved residents do not automatically get more influence through the involvement process. It is likely that many benefit, though, as the involved
CONCLUSIONS · 93
residents’ interests often represent other residents’ interests as well. For ex-ample, most people appreciate floral splendour and greenery. However, add-ing functions to a limited space also implies restraining other opportunities. Even the much detested rubbish-filled vacant lots in American downtowns provide spatial opportunities for some of the residents to do certain activities (e.g., there are stories describing how loitering youth and gangs hang around there). The removal of criminal activities will probably benefit more residents than those losing their hangouts, but there are also more intricate interest con-flicts. While many older residents prefer neat flower beds and well-tended gardens, many children would rather like to have an asphalt ground for bas-ketball and skateboarding. Some people appreciate viewing compost bins, wild-growing gardens and intense cultivation of food crops, while others want it tidy and clean. It is easy to forget about those residents who use the yard mainly passively, i.e. those who seldom spend time on the yard but view it from their window and when they pass through it on their way to and from home. Conflicting interests seem to be a common problem, creating tensions between involved and non-involved residents, and sometimes also within the group of involved residents.
One possible role for the housing company and its management staff would be to mediate between conflicting interests among the residents, guarding the interests of the non-involved or others whose interests are superseded. How-ever, the housing company may also have an agenda of its own. The experi-ences from the case study in Angered show that the residents’ design ideas were not always appreciated by the managers, as the additions did not always suit the company’s ideal of an inviting, cohesive and proper residential area.
Effects on neighbour relations
Although improvement to the physical environment is the most commonly stated imperative for becoming involved in the first place, the social exchange has been described as a key reward for involved residents. Moreover, effects on neighbour relations are often presented as the most important outcomes of involvement processes.
The social exchange takes place primarily among the residents who are ac-tive in the involvement process. The involvement work per se implies social exchange, which results in the development of social relationships, in turn enhancing further social exchange, and so on. For many involved residents, the togetherness sense produced and reproduced by the involvement process is of great importance. Individual contacts are practically useful for exchang-ing services, e.g. borrowing something, getting help repairing something, or having someone watch one’s apartment during vacation. Also on an emotional level, the sense of belonging and the feeling of knowing and being known by one’s neighbours can be valuable for the individual’s well-being. Moreover, social networks among the neighbours can also be understood as a collective asset, through the potential of mobilising many residents in a joint cause, the development of local social norms, and social control of the area. The mobili-sation potential allows the residents to use their individual skills, time, energy, and other resources to carry on common projects and stake their claims to-wards the housing company or other actors. The development of local social norms can be seen as an extension of tenancy agreements, stating codes of
94
behaviour which enhance order and safety. The norms, in turn, are enforced by social control. Social control is typically carried out by the involved resi-dents, who also develop the norms, which thereby reflect their specific inter-ests.
As many studies have indicated, improvements to the physical environment as well as management activities taking place on the yard facilitate social ex-change and contact not only among the group of involved residents, but also within the broader community. Involvement processes can thus have a bridg-ing effect, contributing to social exchange between involved and non-involved residents. However, as has also been shown, the bonding character of many involvement processes may contribute to the exclusion of certain individuals and groups – exclusion from the benefits of togetherness as well as from using the yard freely. Sometimes, the development of local social norms does not reflect everyone’s interests, and some may even feel oppressed by the social control. On the other hand, non-involved residents may also be affected posi-tively by social control executed by a bonding togetherness group of involved residents, as it may create a sense of safety. And as social networking is likely to increase the use of the yard, it may also bring about a sense of vibrancy and amenity in the area.
From a housing company perspective, some of the social aspects of in-volvement processes may be problematic. For example, if togetherness prac-tice leads to divisions between different groups, it may evoke tearing tensions. The mobilisation of a strong tenants’ collective claiming different improve-ments may also be unwelcome by the housing company in some regards. However, in most regards, housing companies have an interest in strengthen-ing contacts between neighbours. Of particular value is social control, which can preserve order and safety.
Effects on the area’s image
The image of a residential area has far-reaching impact on the conditions for its development, and also directly on the well-being of its residents. Tenant involvement in open space management, as well as other forms of collective gardening, is often promoted for its potential to influence the area identity in positive ways. This can be a result of both improvements to the physical envi-ronment (more plants, a more well-kept area, less litter, more attractive de-sign, etc.) and changes in neighbour relations (more liveliness in the area, so-cial control, a sense of capability of self-organisation, etc.). Although there are examples of remarkable improvements to stigmatised areas thanks to in-volvement processes, it mainly concerns the internal image. Improvement to the external image, i.e. how others besides the inhabitants view the area, is more difficult to achieve, and requires a long-term strategy combining meas-ures in the physical environment with social, organisational and economical measures and sometimes also bench-marking (Wassenberg, 2004). Many times, a neighbourhood’s disadvantageous stigma has proved hard to remove in spite of ambitious regeneration projects (see, e.g., Hastings, 2004). Never-theless, some of the stories found in the literature indicate that collective gar-dening can also contribute to substantial improvements to the external image of deprived areas (e.g. Severson, 1990; Alfredsson & Cars, 1996; Glover, 2003).
CONCLUSIONS · 95
From the involved as well as the non-involved residents’ perspectives, the external image of the area can be of great importance. Besides all the possible discriminatory effects of living in a stigmatised area, the effects on self-esteem should not be neglected. Dissatisfaction with the negative external area image was a central concern for many of the interviewees in the Angered case study. Consequently, one reason they became involved in open space management was to contribute to creating a nicer and tidier display and a more vivid and socially robust neighbourhood for their own satisfaction, but also to make a better impression on visitors. Cleaning up and planting flowers are apparently very tangible symbols of revitalisation.
Although all inhabitants suffer from neighbourhood stigmatisation, there can be different opinions on how it should be resisted, i.e. how the alternative positive image should be promoted. For example, alternative images such as ‘the cohesive’, ‘the quiet and safe’, ‘the tidy and neat’, or ‘the active and vivid’ area can be in opposition to each other and probably attract different groups of people. In other words, there is also a risk for exclusion in the formulation of alternative area images by those who are directly involved. Moreover, a successful regeneration process is also a gentrification process, which can lead to increasing property values and the subsequent exclusion of poorer house-holds and low-profit activities.
The housing company has an obvious interest in increasing the attractivity of the area, to both satisfy existing tenants and attract new tenants. In many cases, the housing company and the tenants have a common interest in im-proving the area’s general image, and this can be an important incentive for the housing company to support involvement groups who want to tidy the yards. However, the company’s economic interests in gentrification and an attractive external image can be at the expense of some groups of residents. Regeneration projects can even be a way for the company to ‘get rid of’ cer-tain tenants they view as problematic or to reach more ‘profitable’ customer groups (see, e.g., Törnquist, 2001; Newman & Wyly, 2006).
As has been shown, effects on the area’s image are connected to effects on the yard’s environmental functionality as well as neighbour relations. Together, these effects can influence living conditions as well as conditions for social robustness in the local community; see Figure 15.
Central dimensions in involvement processes are the empowerment of resi-dents and their appropriation of local resources. However, there can be many conflicting claims on these resources. Hypothetically, all residents in an area could be involved on equal conditions, but in reality the processes normally involve no more than 15 per cent of the inhabitants, and commonly there is only one or a few real enthusiasts with a dominant influence. If one group of residents gets empowered, there is no guarantee that this group is representa-tive or has legitimacy to decide for the other residents. Similarly, if one group appropriates the yard there is an apparent risk that others will feel excluded. In the worst case, there are even elements of oppression involved. Social ex-clusion is identified here as a key challenge which has to be addressed in the management of yards and togetherness.
96
Figure 15. Schematic framework of effects and implications for sustainable development.
4.1.3. Strategies for supportive involvement processes
In Swedish examples of tenant involvement in open space management, espe-cially regarding those taking place in deprived rental housing areas, the coop-eration between tenant groups and the housing companies’ management staff has been discussed as a central issue. Often, the locally situated management staff has a key role in supporting and facilitating involvement processes. There is also a role to play for the management staff in resolving conflicts, and in guarding the interests of residents who are not represented by the involve-ment group. Some possible strategies for how to take on this role are dis-cussed in Paper IV. These include: (a) finding an appropriate balance between formal and informal arrangements; (b) supporting broad inclusive activities for the development of weak ties and bridging social networking; and (c) awareness of group style and the importance of social reflexivity. The follow-ing three subsections provide an extended presentation of these strategies, anchored in theoretical reasoning about togetherness as well as previous and current empirical findings.
Formal and informal arrangements
The level of formality within the organisation of tenant involvement groups has been discussed in research reports as well as among interviewed stake-holders in the involvement processes. Some advocate more informal organis-ing, while others ask for more formalised structures. Interestingly, both infor-mality and formalisation can be associated with social exclusion.
Possible arguments for informality are that it can facilitate the involvement of people who are not familiar with the formal procedures, and that it may reduce transaction costs and lead to more efficient action. Both these argu-ments reflect a potential for inclusion. For example, the ‘light-bureaucracy’ version of involvement contracts applied in the Poseidon’s yard associations
Good living conditions
Social robustness in the local community
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT in the contexts of Swedish rental housing
areas and tenant involvement in open space management
Physical environment
Neighbour relations
EFFECTS of tenant involvement in open space man-agement in Swedish rental housing areas
Area image
CONCLUSIONS · 97
(see, e.g., Papers I and II) has been promoted as a means to invite broader groups of residents into the process (Bengtsson et al., 2003); and in a similar vein, Aalbers (2002, p. 63) concludes that formal meetings attract mainly white middle-aged men, while activities directed at more concrete action are more inclusive. On the other hand, as one of the interviewed tenants in An-gered Centrum maintained, informality also makes it easier for the group of those involved to dominate and exclude others from decision-making.
In the literature, formalisation has been advocated as a means to secure a stability and continuity of the activities (Bengtsson et al., 2003), for its ability to make the process more trustworthy among other actors (Baker, 2004, p. 320), and as a way to strengthen the self-identity of involvement processes (Hjärne, 1985, pp. 155-156). One important argument should also be that it may provide an opportunity for those who are excluded from informal social networks to gain some influence over the decision-making. Moreover, formal requirements of documenting activities, holding annual meetings and recruit-ing board members, etc., can trigger tenant groups to be more outward reach-ing.
As asserted in Paper IV, the level of formality must be related to the par-ticular local situation. It is also pointed out that there is a natural connection between formalisation on the one hand and levels of control and responsibili-ties on the other. In other words, more autonomous involvement processes are also more likely to have more formal arrangements with the landlord. Al-though formal procedures may repel some groups, they can also be a means to democratise and open up closed groups as well as to trigger outward reaching and allow interventions. In the end, the shortcomings and potentials of infor-mality and formality in the organisational arrangements need to be balanced to adapt to specific local situations.
Bonding and bridging networks
Social exclusion of the kind we discuss here (exclusion from togetherness and from influence over and access to a residential yard) can be related to the dis-cussion on bonding and bridging social capital. Although the concepts are problematic in some regards, they can also be useful. Bonding is sometimes more or less defined as excluding networking, while bridging is essentially an antithesis to social exclusion. However, as discussed in Thematic paper B, the issue is much more complex: While bridging per definition is part of the solu-tion to problems of social exclusion, bonding cannot be simply dismissed as a socially dividing force. It is established in Paper IV that neighbourhood to-getherness is always bonding to some degree, but that it may also be bridging, depending on the situation but also on scale and time parameters of the in-quiry.
Two ‘structural’ network components are often connected to the bonding–bridging dichotomy: (a) cultural heterogeneity within the network; and (b) tie strength. Heterogeneity in social networks is often advocated as it is assumed to support a network culture that is bridging more than bonding. Correspond-ingly, bridging can be assumed to lead to more heterogeneous networks than bonding. However, there are also indications that high levels of heterogeneity are a general constraint to any social networking. Drawing on Granovetter’s theoretical reasoning about tie strength, bridging is also often connected to
98
weak ties. While the theoretical association between bonding–bridging and tie strength can be questioned (see Thematic paper B), many studies establish strong-tie networks as bonding, hence promoting more focus on weak ties.
A tempting conclusion would be that bonding networks and neighbour-hood togetherness should never be supported, but rather suppressed on behalf of bridging weaker tie networks. However, it is suggested in Paper IV (see also Thematic paper B) that weaker tie networks cannot grow and thrive without the existence of stronger ties as well – either because stronger ties may ‘feed’ weaker ties, or because thriving weaker ties grow stronger over time. If this is the case, a consequence would be that strategies would have to adapt based on the situation, rather than either a one-sided promotion of to-getherness or a likewise one-sided dismissal of the same. Figure 16 aims to illustrate this in a schematic way. In situations in which a togetherness group already exists (a in the figure), it may be accurate to invest in weaker tie net-working rather than stronger tie networking. In practice this would mean, for example, that a tradition of seasonal yard-gardening days involving the major-ity of neighbours on the yard could be viewed as a more significant objective than contracting a handful of real enthusiasts to take over the management. However, in a situation in which there is no togetherness group, and overall very little social cohesion among the neighbours (b in the figure), helping some enthusiasts start a garden group and giving them certain privileges could be a fruitful strategy for reaching the same long-term goal of a cohesive yet still non-excluding social neighbourhood: a neighbourhood with togetherness that is integrated into extensive weaker tie networks, i.e. rich in both bridging and bonding.
Figure 16. Possible support strategies for two different situations. Dots = in-dividuals; dashed lines = weaker ties; solid lines = stronger ties. (a) If there is a strong small network of a bonding character, a bridging strategy would be supporting the building of weaker ties and activities involving more than just the existing togetherness group. (b) If there is very little social networking at all, supporting the establishment of a togetherness group may also contribute to extended network of weaker ties.
CONCLUSIONS · 99
Group style and reflexivity
With the structural components of bonding and bridging social capital eluci-dated, it needs to be noted that it would be a simplification to reduce the com-plex mechanisms of exclusion and inclusion to merely a question of tie strengths and networks. Of importance are also cultural components such as shared codes, collective conceptions, social norms and attitudes. These kinds of components have been discussed as the cognitive and relational dimensions of social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998), or simply as cognitive social capital (Uphoff, 2000).13 Bonding, structurally associated with homogenous close-knit networks with few contacts outside the group, is cognitively based on norms of, e.g., rigidness, prejudices, and ‘us and them’ differentiation. Bridging, on the other hand, structurally associated with more heterogeneous and integrated networks, would cognitively be based on values such as open-mindedness, tolerance and respectful curiosity. The structural and cognitive dimensions are reciprocally interrelated. For example, social segregation is a basis for prejudices, which in turn contribute to further divisions in the social structures. However intertwined, analytically the two dimensions are distin-guishable.
To use Lichterman’s terminology, the group style is essential for how a group may relate itself to surrounding social contexts (see Thematic paper B). As he concludes from his field studies, civic groups with the ability to self-reflectively discuss their own role in relation to the local community they work in will also be able to accomplish their mission of social spiralling. Corre-spondingly, the study in Angered indicates that group style may define whether an involvement group will be likely to bridge or deepen social divides on the yard. The study contained examples of tendencies of xenophobic norms and prejudices about other ethnic or cultural groups. Especially, there was a common conception of a clash between ‘Swedes’ and ‘immigrants’, as de-scribed in the section about exclusion. The practice of social reflexivity within the group can be of importance for developing norms of tolerance.
Social norms are products of social networking, but can also be influenced to a large extent by external factors, such as broadcast media and marketing. If there is a problematic situation with intolerance and conflicts based on prejudices and excluding social norms, there might well be a role for the hous-ing company to play in bridging some of the conflicts. The housing company in the case study was already running a project for reaching out better to some immigrant groups with the help of “cultural interpreters” – employees with foreign backgrounds who could talk to tenants of certain ethnicities in their native language. Even though this is not directly related to social norms, it shows that issues of social exclusion and miscommunication were taken seri-ously by the housing company. The local managers met the residents on a daily basis during their work in the area, and also at meetings of different kinds. Their response to attitudes among the residents may be confirmative or reactive, and can influence how local norms are reproduced.
13 See Thematic paper B for a discussion on structural and cognitive dimensions of social capital.
100
4.2. Wider implications In the introduction, three topical entrances to the research project were de-scribed: research about urban green structures, about participation in plan-ning, and about the local area as a strategy for sustainable development. These entrances were presented as three roots of the Epistemology Tree, in-tertwining into a trunk which gives form to the idea of sustainable develop-ment. To distillate a feasible research task from this broad basis, the ‘case’ of tenant involvement in open space management was identified. The last task for this dissertation will now be to bring the findings from the ‘case’ in the foliage, along the branches and back to the trunk to see which implications it may have on a wider plane. Therefore, I will briefly look back to the three roots and the theoretical perspectives related to them. The ‘case’ of tenant involvement in open space management can be reflected through these per-spectives as a manifestation of three underlying ideas, urging the (re)con-nection of people to place, to society, and to each other.
4.2.1. Tenant managed yards as an urban land resource
The first root is the issue of urban green spaces and their roles in the urban fabric. In settings with very little access to green spaces, e.g. in parts of New York City and other US cities, the ‘right’ to gardens has become a political issue. In the context of this study, Swedish large-scale suburban housing areas from the 1960s and 1970s, green spaces are far from a scarcity. However, as Ståhle (2005; 2008) emphasises, the existence of public open space does not guarantee that it is accessible. According to his investigations in Stockholm, the most densely built and most highly populated areas of the inner city also provide the highest accessibility to public green areas, while apparently greener and less dense peri-urban areas provide less accessibility to these amenities. In current debates, green areas in large-scale suburbs are often per-ceived as a problem rather than as an asset. The larger cities in Sweden need land for new housing developments, and to all appearances, the conflicts be-tween building interests and green space interests will gradually intensify14.Climate change and other environmental pressures only escalate the risk for conflict. The case study and the literature review indicate that involvement processes can improve the functionality and increase the use of citizen-managed spaces, which can be interpreted as the potential for more efficient land use (that is: efficient in using available land resources to provide good physical environments for people, which ultimately aims to enhance life qual-ity).
The studied processes take place in a specific kind of urban green space – ‘residential yards’ – which are typically semi-public spaces, or publicly accessi-ble ‘club territories’ (see Thematic paper D). While they perceptionally ‘be-
14 In Sweden, public urban green space has traditionally had a relatively strong position vis-à-vis other interests in land use discussions. However, there are several recent examples of new developments in the midst of existing housing areas on land which was formerly designed as public green space. One particularly illustrative example is Alingsåshem’s 2006 densification in Östlyckan, Alingsås, where a new six-storey house was raised on a central open space in the area. In this case, the ‘loss’ of recreational space was ‘compensated’ with investments to improve the quality of remaining open spaces.
CONCLUSIONS · 101
long to’ a definable group of nearby residents, they are still accessible to the public. The degree to which the yards are perceived as more or less public largely depends on physical attributes such as proportions, demarcations, and the design of entrances. It also depends on behaviour, e.g. how much the yard is used, how it is used, and by whom. When a place is used and redesigned, its meanings are transformed. Often, there is a process of appropriation, which means that an individual or a group of people develops a certain relationship with a place, a sense of belonging. Paradoxically, this may lead to the place becoming both more public and more private, depending on a range of factors (appropriation may invite usage on behalf of, e.g., an increased sense of safety and improved functionality; and it may repel on behalf of, e.g., social control and domination).
It is likely that an increase in tenant involvement in open space manage-ment, as well as other forms of collective gardening, will contribute to devel-oping more diverse urban environments, more complex informal territorial-ities and more dynamic land use. It is thus one possible response to Madani-pour’s (2003) request for “a flexible and elaborate boundary between the two realms” of privateness and publicness. In times of mobility and virtuality, it envisions a possibility of (re)connecting people to the place where they live.
4.2.2. Involvement processes as citizen participation
The second root is the issue of citizen participation in planning processes. From a macro perspective, tenant involvement in open space management can be seen as one of many indications of a growing interest in participation from society and its citizens, but also as a reaction to a political transition whereby society recedes from its previous commitments and citizens have to take a more active role. Independent of which of the viewpoints is applied, tenant involvement in open space management well suits the calls for citizen partici-pation by the global society in documents like Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992) and The Habitat Agenda (UN-Habitat, 1996). A relevant question, though, which is often neglected, is what participation is supposed to be good for, i.e. exactly how it can support sustainable development. There is reason to look critically and pragmatically at each local participation process.
In the debates on local governance, critical voices point out that the focus on informal local partnerships divert attention from the redrawal of formal political institutions in providing services, which may have severe conse-quences for democracy in the long term. Although the studied processes of tenant involvement in open space management do not clearly represent this trend, it could be suggested that there is a connection, at least insofar as the tenants’ engagement is a response to the housing company’s incapacity to maintain the area sufficiently.
Besides direct effects on the local situation, there may also be wider impli-cations of importance, e.g. the building of trust and social networks, the de-velopment of norms and organisational skills, increasing awareness and en-gagement in other issues, and other factors which together nurture a culture of cooperation and democracy. There is also, however, a risk of canalising differ-ent conflicts when responsibilities and roles are renegotiated. There are al-ways both cooperation and conflict mechanisms present in involvement proc-esses, just as in any social relationship or societal process. Avoiding the con-
102
flicts by keeping the status quo may seem the easiest way, but as suggested in this thesis, it can be more constructive to face the conflicts than to try to ig-nore them, especially in the long term.
In the same way as involvement in open space management is a means of appropriation of urban land, it can also be related to the discussions on ‘the right to the city’ (Lefebvre, 1968/1996; McCann, 2002; Harvey, 2003; Mitchell, 2003). Tenant involvement in open space management is a concrete example of active participation of the city’s inhabitants in reshaping their own living environments. By getting involved, tenants manifest their own transformation from space consumers to place producers. It can also be seen as a part of what Lina Olsson (2008) calls ‘the self-organised city’, where local inhabitants cre-ate new activities, traditions and places outside the frames provided by formal institutions. However, as highlighted by Mark Purcell (2002), while ‘the right to the city’ offers new ways of understanding urban governance, it deals with a complex and problematic issue and cannot be seen as a “completed solution”. Don Mitchell (1995; 2003) presents the urban public space as a constant bat-tlefield for competing interests. Similarly, there is a constant struggle over the right to use, produce and reproduce the residential yard between different groups of inhabitants, non-inhabitants, land-owners, managers and planners. Tenant involvement is a strong symbol of local control but it will not end the struggle, which is inevitable in the sharing of commons. In this process of self-organisation and participation, it envisions a possibility of (re)connecting ur-ban inhabitants to the society they are a part of.
4.2.3. Togetherness and the local community
The third root is the issue of the local area and the local social community as a domain for analysing society and strategies for sustainable development. Ten-ant involvement in open space management is not always initiated with the primary purpose of creating togetherness and strengthening the local commu-nity, but often it is. In many cases, it has explicitly been described as a reaction to fears of social fragmentation in modern society. As has been discussed, the consequences of modernity are complex and contested. The very idea of local communities in modern urban settings has been questioned. Others see local communities as an inevitable part of a well-functioning human society. The roles and forms of local communities have been reconceptualised in different ways. From this perspective, social robustness in a neighbourhood can be un-derstood as an issue of importance also outside the local community and its inhabitants.
Most contemporary scholars engaging in debates on social capital and community building place themselves either in a strongly affirmative or a strongly critical position towards such a thing as neighbourhood togetherness. Supporters emphasise the importance of social norms, networks and trust in a well-functioning society, while critics emphasise the importance of heteroge-neity, individual autonomy and integrity. Both sides generally agree that bridging, weak ties in mixed networks should be promoted and that bonding, strong ties within closed groups of like-minded individuals can lead to prob-lems. However, some important aspects are largely missing in these polemics. One aspect is that there may actually be a mutually reinforcing relationship between close-knit homogeneous groups and inclusive weak tie networking,
CONCLUSIONS · 103
just like the togetherness groups on the case study yards functioned as cata-lysts of social contact in the area. Another aspect is that ‘group style’ in formal organisations as well as informal networks is central for their role in the local community. This project has shown that neighbourhood togetherness can have ambiguous outcomes for individuals as well as for the local community and society at large.
The key challenge of neighbourhood togetherness and local communities pointed out here is the risk of social exclusion and oppressive tendencies. However, the absence of togetherness can also be a limitation, especially for those who have few contacts outside the neighbourhood. Tenant involvement in open space management is one example of initiatives contributing to resist-ing the time-spatial disembedding of social relations in society, envisioning a possibility to (re)connect urban inhabitants to each other in local social net-works with all the potentials and challenges this brings.
4.2.4. A final remark
Having discussed potential wider implications of the local processes stud-ied, it should be pointed out once again that they are still local processes fo-cussing on local issues. To create a prosperous, just and robust society, the local perspective must be combined with a global one (Falkheden, 1999). As discussed in Paper V, the potential for tenant involvement in open space man-agement or other collective gardening processes to regenerate deprived urban areas is limited as many of the causes of deprivation depend on political, eco-nomical and cultural macro structures which cannot be addressed on a local area level. This leads to the question of whether the focus on local manage-ment issues contributes to the solution of, or rather diverts attention from, problems of structural injustice and unsustainable development in a wider perspective. Judging from the reviewed literature and my own studies, it seems that there is no necessary connection between local engagement and global engagement, but that it rather depends on each case and the individuals involved. However, it should also be noted that local involvement processes like these apparently serve as important sources of inspiration for different kinds of wider visions of possible urban futures, with continuous productive landscapes, direct grassroots democracy, and well-functioning supportive local social communities.
104
REFERENCES
Aalbers, Carmen (2002). “Case II: Contacts through Contracts: Residents manag-ing public green space in Utrecht”, in Aalbers, Carmen, et al., (Eds.): Work Package 4: The Utrecht-Houten case study. EU 5th Framework project Commu-nicating Urban Growth and Green (GREENSCOM). Alterra Green World Re-search, Wageningen.
ACGA, American Community Gardening Association (1998). National Commu-nity Gardening Survey: 1996. American Community Gardening Association, US.
Alaimo, Katherine; Packnet, Elizabeth; Miles, Richard A. & Kruger, Daniel J. (2008). “Fruit and vegetable intake among urban community gardeners”, in Journal of Nutrition, Education and Behavior, 40 (2), pp. 94-101.
Alfredsson, Björn & Cars, Göran (1996). De boende som medarbetare: självför-valtning i Holma. SABO Utveckling, Enskede. [The residents as partners: self-management in Holma]
Andersson, Roger (2009). Speech at the conference “För vem byggs staden” (“For whom do we build the city”). Västra Götalandsregionen, Göteborg.
Armstrong, D. (2000). “A survey of community gardens in upstate New York: Implications for health promotion and community development”, in Health & Place, 6 (4), pp. 319-327.
Asp, Hanna (2009). Hållbar utveckling genom stadsodling. Institutionen för stad och land, SLU (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences), Ultuna.
Asplund, Johan (2002). Genom huvudet: problemlösningens socialpsykologi. Kor-pen, Göteborg. [Through the head: the social psychology of problem solving]
Baker, Lauren E. (2004). “Tending Cultural Landscapes and Food Citizenship in Toronto’s Community Gardens”, in Geographical Review, 94 (3), pp. 305-325.
Bartolomei, Linda; Corkery, Linda; Judd, Bruce & Thompsson, Susan (2003). ABountiful Harvest; Community Gardens and Neighbourhood Renewal in Water-loo. The University of South Wales/NSW Department of Housing, Sydney.
Bassett, Thomas J. (1979). Vacant lot cultivation: community gardening in America, 1893-1978. University of California, Berkeley.
Bauman, Zygmunt (2001). Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Been, Vicky & Voicu, Ioan (2006). The Effect of Community Gardens on Neighboring Property Values. New York University Law and Economics Work-ing Paper, Paper 46. New York University, New York.
Bengtsson, Bo; Berger, Tommy; Fransson, Niklas; Lind, Jan-Erik & Modh, Birgit (2003). Lokal kontroll och kollektivt handlande: en utvärdering av självförvalt-ning i Bostads AB Poseidon i Göteborg. Institutet för bostads- och urbanforsk-ning, Uppsala universitet, Gävle. [Local control and collective action]
Bengtsson, Bo; Svensson, K.A. Stefan & Uggla, Cathrine (2000). Hyresgästens dilemma: om hållbart samarbete i bostadsområden. Institutet för bostads- och urbanforskning, Uppsala universitet, Gävle. [The tenant’s dilemma: on sustai-nable cooperation in residential areas]
REFERENCES · 105
Berglund, Ulla (1996). Perspektiv på stadens natur: om hur invånare och planerare ser på utemiljön i staden. Institutionen för Arkitektur och Stadsbyggnad, KTH, Stockholm. [Perspectives on the nature of the city]
Berglund, Ulla; Hansson, Tom; Hägg, Tjelhvar; Jergeby, Ulla & Söderblom, Pär (1995). Vi vårdar vår gård. Stad & land 130. Movium / SLU (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences) Alnarp. [We take care of our yard]
Berglund, Ulla & Jergeby, Ulla (1989). Uteliv: med barn och pensionärer på gård och gata i park och natur. T10:1989. Statens råd för byggnadsforskning, Stock-holm. [Outdoor life]
Berglund, Ulla; Jergeby, Ulla & Schroeder, Håkan (1993). Att bo i Tusenskönan: så tycker de boende och så fungerar området. Stad & land nr. 114. Movium / SLU (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences), Alnarp. [Living in Tusen-skönan]
Bergsten, Zara & Holmqvist, Emma (2007). Att blanda? En undersökning av pla-nerares och allmännyttiga bostadsbolags syn på planering för en allsidig hus-hållssammansättning. Research report 2007:1. Institute for Housing and Urban Research Gävle. [To mix? An examination of planners’ and public housing companies’ view on planning for social mix]
Biernacki, Patrick & Waldorf, Dan (1981). “Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling”, in Sociological Methods and Research,10 (2), pp. 141-163.
Boström, Lena (2007). Koloniträdgården - odling eller rekreation. Faculty of Land-scape Planning, Horticulture and Agricultural Science, SLU (Swedish Univer-sity of Agricultural Sciences), Alnarp. [The colony garden - cultivation or rec-reation?]
Castell, Pål (2005). Resident involvement in neighborhood space management; a survey among housing companies in Göteborg. International Conference for In-tegrating Urban Knowledge & Practice. 29 May - 3 June, 2005, Göteborg.
Castell, Pål (2006). “Space for community: on the study of resident involvement in neighborhood space management”, in Mander, Ü, et al., (Eds.): The Sustainable City IV: Urban Regeneration and Sustainability. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment. WIT Press, Southhampton, pp. 703-712.
Castell, Pål (2009). Collective gardening as a coping strategy for residents in de-prived urban neighbourhoods: a literature review. ENHR09, Changing Housing Markets: Integration and segmentation. Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sci-ences of the Czech Republic, 28 June - 1 July, 2009, Prague.
Castell, Pål (2010). “Involving tenants in open space management: experiences from Swedish rental housing areas”, in Urban Geography, 31 (2), pp. 236-258.
Castell, Pål (submitted-a). “The ambiguity of togetherness: experiences from a participative open space management initiative in a residential area”.
Castell, Pål (submitted-b). “Collective gardening and deprived neighbourhoods: a literature review”.
Cele, Sofia (2002). Förändringsprocesser på gårdar: djupintervjuer av gårdsgrup-per, boende, personal, fastighetsförvaltare och projektanställda involverade i Agenda 21-projekten Grönskande levande gårdar och Hållbar livsstil i innersta-den. Utrednings- och statistikkontoret, Stockholms Stad, Stockholm. [Processes of change on residential yards: deep interviews with yard groups, residents, staff, managers and project workers involved in the Agenda 21 projects Green living yards and Sustainable life-style in the inner-city]
106
Dekker, Karien (2007). “Social Capital, Neighbourhood Attachment and Partici-pation in Distressed Urban Areas: A Case Study in The Hague and Utrecht, the Netherlands”, in Housing Studies, 22 (3), pp. 355-379.
Dekker, Karien & Bolt, Gideon (2005). “Social cohesion in post-war estates in the Netherlands: differences between socioeconomic and ethnic groups”, in Urban Studies, 42 (13), pp. 2447-2470.
Delshammar, Tim (2005). Kommunal parkverksamhet med brukarmedverkan.Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae, 2005:118. Department of Landscape Management and Horticultural Technology, SLU (Swedish University of Agri-cultural Sciences) Alnarp. [Municipal park management with citizen participa-tion]
Delshammar, Tim (2006). “Brukare och brukarmedverkan i den kommunala parkverksamheten”, in Gröna Fakta (Tidningen Uterum), 1/2006.
Domene, Elena & Saurí, David (2007). “Urbanization and class-produced natures: Vegetable gardens in the Barcelona Metropolitan Region”, in Geoforum, 38, pp. 287-298.
Edén, Michael; Birgersson, Lisbeth; Dyrssen, Catharina & Simes, Lena (2003). “Design for sustainable building: development of a conceptual framework for improved design processes”, in the proceedings of Technology and management for sustainable building, Pretoria 26-30 May, 2003.
Edlund, Michael; Nilsson, Ola; Ohlsson, Olof; Pålsson, Anna & Stavne, Angela (2001). En utvärdering av Hermodsdalslyftet: ett samverkansprojekt i Malmö.Lunds Universitet, Lund. [An evaluation of Hermodsdalslyftet: a partnership project in Malmö]
Elder, Robert F. (2005). “Protecting New York City’s community gardens”, in New York University Environmental Law Journal, 13, pp. 769-800.
Englander, Diane (2001). New York’s Community Gardens - A Resource at Risk.Trust for Public Land, New York, US.
Ericson, Ulla (2002). Gårdar och livsstil i förändring; enkäter med innerstadsbor i Agenda 21-projektet “Grönskande levande gårdar” före och efter förnyelsen; Slutrapport. Utrednings- och statistikkontoret, Stockholms Stad, Stockholm. [Courtyards and lifestyle in transition]
Falkheden, Lena (1999). Lokalområdet som strategi för en hållbar stadsutveckling : fallstudier av tre danska exempel. Doktorsavhandlingar vid Chalmers tekniska högskola. Ny serie, 1527. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg. [The local area as a strategy for sustainable urban development ]
Femenías, Paula & Edén, Michael (2009). Byggherremodell för demonstrationspro-jekt: implementeringsguide. Byggherrarna, Stockholm.
Feyerabend, Paul (1975). Against method: outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. NLB, London.
Flyvbjerg, Bent (2004). “Five misunderstandings about case-study research”, in Seale, Clive, et al., (Eds.): Qualitative Research Practice. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 420-434.
Gehl, Jan (1971). Livet mellem husene. Arkitektens forlag, København. [Life be-tween buildings]
Gehl, Jan; Brack, Freda & Thornton, Simon (1977). The interface between public and private territories in residential areas: a study by students of Architecture at Melbourne University. Melbourne University, Parkville.
Gellner, Ernest (1998). Language and solitude: Wittgenstein, Malinowski and the Habsburg dilemma. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
REFERENCES · 107
Gibbons, Michael (1999). “Science’s new social contract with society”, in Nature,402 (C81), pp. 11-18.
Gibbons, Michael; Limoges, Camille; Nowotny, Helga; Schwartzman, Simon; Scott, Peter & Trow, Martin (1994). The new production of knowledge: the dy-namics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London.
Giraud, Deborah D. (1990). “Shared backyard gardening”, in Francis, Mark & Hester, Randolph T., (Eds.): The meaning of gardens: idea, place, and action.MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 166-171.
Glover, Troy D. (2003). “The story of the Queen Anne Memorial Garden: Resist-ing a dominant cultural narrative”, in Journal of Leisure Research, 35 (2), pp. 190-212.
Glover, Troy D. (2004). “Social capital in the lived experiences of community gar-deners”, in Leisure Sciences, 26 (2), pp. 143-162.
Glover, Troy D.; Shinew, Kimberly J. & Parry, Diana C. (2005). “Association, sociability, and civic culture: The democratic effect of community gardening”, in Leisure Sciences, 27 (1), pp. 75-92.
Gottberg, Emil (2009). Urban odling: möjligheter för framtiden. Fakulteten för landskapsplanering, trädgårds- och jordbruksvetenskap, SLU (Swedish Univer-sity of Agricultural Sciences), Alnarp. [Urban cultivation: future possibilities]
Grahn, Patrik; Mårtensson, Fredrika; Lindblad, B.; Nilsson, P. & Ekman, A. (1997). Ute på dagis: Hur använder barn daghemsgården? Utformningen av daghemsgården och dess betydelse för lek, motorik och koncentrationsförmåga.Stad & Land. Movium/SLU, Alnarp. [Outdoors on the nursery school]
Granovetter, Mark (1973). “The strength of weak ties”, in American Journal of Sociology, 78, pp. 1360–1380.
Groat, Linda & Wang, David (2002). Architectural Research Methods. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Grönskande levande gårdar (2002). Goda exempel: inspiration, gemenskap, livs-glädje och hållbart boende. Stockholms stad: Agenda 21 innerstaden, Stock-holm. [Good examples: inspiration, togetherness, joy of living, and sustainable development]
Haigh, Christine & Reynolds, Ben (2008). Growing round the houses: Food pro-duction on housing estates. Briefing. Women’s Environmental Network / Sus-tain, London.
Harcourt, Bernard E. (2001). Illusion of Order: The False Promise of Broken Win-dows Policing. Harvard University Press.
Harvey, David (2003). “The right to the city”, in International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27 (4), pp. 939-941.
Hastings, Annette (2004). “Stigma and social housing estates: beyond pathological explanations”, in Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 19 (3), pp. 233-254.
Hawtin, Murray (1998). “Estate management boards: their development and sig-nificance”, in Cooper, Charlie & Hawtin, Murray, (Eds.): Resident Involvement and Community Action : Theory to Practice. Housing Policy and Practice Series. The Chartered Institute of Housing, Coventry (UK), pp. 245-266.
Hens, Luc & De Wit, Julie (2003). “The development of indicators and core indi-cators for sustainable development: a state of the art review”, in InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development, 6 (4), pp. 436-460.
Herrnsdorf, Magdalena (2005). Guide till grönare gårdar: inspiration för hyresgäs-ter. Hyresgästföreningen Region Västra Götaland, Göteborg.
108
Hjärne, Lars (1985). “Att bygga för gemenskap, en myt eller ...?” in Forskare om samhälle, välfärd och boende. T5:1985, Byggforskningsrådet, Stockholm. [To build for community, a myth, or...?]
Holland, Leigh (2004). “Diversity and Connections in Community Gardens: a con-tribution to local sustainability”, in Local Environment, 9 (3), pp. 285-305.
Holmberg, John (1998). “Backcasting: A Natural Step in Operationalising Sus-tainable Development”, in Greener Management International (23), pp. 30-51.
Horgby, Charlotte & Jarlöv, Lena (1991). Lägenhetsträdgårdar: ett nygammalt sätt att förbättra bostadsmiljön. Rapport T1:1991. Byggforskningsrådet, Stockholm. [Apartment lots: a reinvention to improve the housing environments]
Hörnstein, Karin (2010). Stadsodling som begrepp i Sverige: bakgrund, nulägesbe-skrivning och tänkbar utveckling. Department of Plant Bioloogy, SLU (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences), Alnarp.
Jamison, Michael S. (1985). “The joys of gardening: collectivist and bureaucratic cultures in conflict”, in The Sociological Quarterly, 26 (4), pp. 473-490.
Kelling, George L. & Coles, C. M. (1996). Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Or-der and Reducing Crime in Our Communities. Free Press.
Kelling, George L. & Wilson, James Q. (1982). “Broken Windows : The Police and Neighborhood Safety”, in The Atlantic Monthly, pp. 29-38.
Kemper, Elizabeth A.; Stringfield, Sam & Teddlie, Charles (2003). “Mixed meth-ods sampling strategies in social science research”, in Tashakkori, Abbas & Teddlie, Charles, (Eds.): Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral re-search. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, pp. xv, 768 ;.
Klarqvist, Björn & Thiberg, Sven (2003). Acceptera inte: om arkitektyrkenas mar-ginalisering och om behovet av en motståndsrörelse: en lägesbeskrivning gjord 2003. Bokskogen, Göteborg. [Don’t accept: about the marginalisation of the ar-chitecture professions and the need of a resistency movement: the state of the art 2003]
Klein, Julie Thompson (1990). Interdisciplinarity: history, theory, and practice.Wayne State University Press, Detroit.
Koc, Mustafa, (Ed.) (1999). For hunger-proof cities: sustainable urban food sys-tems. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa.
Krishna, Anirudh (2000). “Creating and harnessing social capital”, in Dasgupta, Partha & Serageldin, Ismail, (Eds.): Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective.The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank, Washington.
Kristensson, Eva (1994). Fem förbättrade gårdar; en studie av 1980-talets miljöför-bättringsprojekt. R29:1994. Byggforskningsrådet, Stockholm. [Five improved yards: a study of the environmental improvement projects of the 1980s]
Kristensson, Eva (2003). Rymlighetens betydelse: en undersökning av rymlighet i bostadsgårdens kontext. Byggnadsfunktion, Arkitektur, LTH, Lunds universitet, Lund. [The significance of spaciousness: an inquiry on spaciousness in the con-text of the residential yard]
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. International ency-clopedia of unified science, 2:2. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kurtz, Hilda E. (2001). “Differentiating multiple meanings of garden and commu-nity”, in Urban Geography, 22 (7), pp. 656-670.
Kvale, Steinar (1997). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun (The Qualitative Re-search Interview). Studentlitteratur, Lund.
REFERENCES · 109
Kärrholm, Mattias (2004). Arkitekturens territorialitet. Institutionen för Arkitek-tur, LTH, Lunds Universitet, Lund. [The territoriality of architecture]
Langhelle, Oluf (1999). “Sustainable development: Exploring the ethics of ‘Our Common Future’”, in International Political Science Review, 20 (2), p. 129.
Larsson, Marie (2005). “Citizens create gardens as meeting places in public space”, in the proceedings of Life in the Urban Landscape, Göteborg 29 May - 3 June.
Lawson, Laura J. (2005). City bountiful: a century of community gardening in America. University of California Press.
Lefebvre, Henri (1968/1996). “Right to the city”, in Kofman, Eleonore & Lebas, Elizabeth, (Eds.): Writings on cities. Blackwell, Cambridge.
Lefebvre, Henri (1970/2003). The urban revolution [La révolution urbaine]. Uni-versity of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Lélé, Sharachchandra M. (1991). “Sustainable development: A critical review”, in World Development, 19 (6), pp. 607-621.
Librizzi, Lenny (2004). “Kulturell mångfald i New Yorks ‘Community gardens’”, in Tidningen Utemiljö/Gröna Fakta, 8/2004. [Cultural diversity in New York’s ‘Community gardens’]
Lichterman, Paul (2005). Elusive togetherness: church groups trying to bridge America’s divisions. Princeton studies in cultural sociology. Princeton Univer-sity Press, Princeton.
Lieberg, Mats & Schmidtbauer, Pia (2001). “Community gardens i New York City”, in Tidningen Utemiljö/Gröna Fakta, 5/2001.
Lind, Jan-Erik (2005). “Hyresgästers lokala inflytande”, in Olsson, Sören, et al., (Eds.): Framtidens stadsdelsutveckling: 1993-2004. Förvaltnings AB Framtiden, Göteborg, p. 156. [Tenants’ local influence]
Lindgren, Christel (2009). Gerillaodling: ett frö till förändring. Fakulteten för land-skapsplanering, trädgårds- och jordbruksvetenskap, SLU (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences), Alnarp. [Guerilla gardening: a seed for change]
Lindgren, Therese (2005). “How can management of estate grounds make a dif-ference to people’s quality of life on brownfield sites”, in the proceedings of Cabernet 2005 - The International Conference on Managing Urban Land, Bel-fast 13-15 April.
Lindgren, Therese & Castell, Pål (2008). “Open space management in residential areas: how it is organised and why”, in International Journal of Strategic Prop-erty Management, 12 (3), pp. 141-160.
Linn, Björn (1974/1989). Storgårdskvarteret: ett bebyggelsemönsters bakgrund och karaktär. Arkitekturens teori och historia 1989:1. Statens institut för byggnads-forskning, Stockholm. [The large yard block: the background and character of an building pattern]
Lofland, Lyn H. (1998). The Public Realm: Exploring the City’s Quintessential So-cial Territory. Communication and social order. Aldine de Gruyter, Hawthorne.
Lundgren Alm, Elisabet (1996). Stadsgrönskan: integrerat eller separat stads-byggnadselement? Department of Urban Design and Planning, Chalmers Uni-versity of Technology, Göteborg. [The urban greens: an integrated or separated urban design element?]
Lundgren Alm, Elisabet (2001). Stadslandskapets obrukade resurs: Om grönstruk-turens potential och synliggörande i en hållbar stadsutveckling. Built Environ-ment and Sustainable Development, Department of Architecture, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg.
110
Lundgren Alm, Elisabet (2003). “Visualizing Urban Green Qualities in Sweden: A Way of Raising the Quality of the Urban Landscape”, in Built Environment, 29 (4), pp. 306-314.
Lundgren Alm, Elisabet; Korhonen, Pernilla; Castell, Pål; Tornberg, Jonas & Malbert, Björn (2004). Grönstrukturens synliggörande; en förutsättning för in-tegration av kunskaper om grönstrukturen i stadsplaneringen. Chalmers Arki-tektur, Göteborg. [Visualization of the green structure]
Lundgren Alm, Elisabet; Malbert, Björn & Korhonen, Pernilla (2002). Sweden: Case Studies Gothenburg, Report to the EU 5th Framework Project Communi-cating Urban Growth and Green (GREENSCOM). Work Package 7. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg.
MacNair (2002). The Garden City Handbook - How to Create and Protect Com-munity Gardens in Greater Victoria. Polis Project on Ecological Governance, Victoria, Canada.
Madanipour, Ali (2003). Public and private spaces of the city. Routledge, London. Malbert, Björn (1998). Urban planning participation: linking practice and theory.
Chalmers, Göteborg. Malbert, Björn; Kain, Jaan-Henrik; Birgersson, Lisbeth; Lundgren Alm, Elisabet;
Söderberg, Henriette; Falkheden, Lena & Strömberg, Knut (2004). Stadens hållbara utveckling och urbana strukturer: en syntes av ett forskningsprogram.Chalmers Arkitektur, Göteborg. [Sustainable urban development and urban structures: synthesis of a research programme]
Malinowski, Bronislaw (1944). A scientific theory of culture and other essays. Uni-versity of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Max-Neef, Manfred (1992). “Development and Human Needs”, in Ekins, Paul & Max-Neef, Manfred, (Eds.): Real life economics: understanding wealth creation.Routledge, London, pp. 197-214.
McCann, Eugene J. (2002). “Space, citizenship, and the right to the city: A brief overview”, in GeoJournal, 58 (2/3), pp. 77-79.
Mitchell, Don (1995). “The end of public space? People’s Park, definitions of the public, and democracy”, in Annals - Association of American Geographers, 85 (1), pp. 108-133.
Mitchell, Don (2003). The right to the city: social justice and the fight for public space. Guilford Press, New York.
Modh, Birgit (1988). Strävan efter självförvaltning: boinflytande och arkitektur i Eriksbo - en lägesrapport. R6:1988. Chalmers, Göteborg. [Striving for self-management: tenant influence and architecture in Eriksbo]
Modh, Birgit (1998). “Appropriating everyday space: an important aspect in the development of city culture”, in the proceedings of City & Culture - Urban Sus-tainability and Cultural Processes, Stockholm, 13-17 May 1998.
Modh, Birgit (1999). “A housing area developed in a complex cultural context”, in Krantz, Birgit, et al., (Eds.): Large scale housing estates in North-West Europe: problems, interventions and experiences. Housing and Urban Policy Studies 17. Delft University Press, Delft.
Mougeot, Luc J. A., (Ed.) (2005). Agropolis: the social, political, and environ-mental dimensions of urban agriculture. Earthscan, London.
Mougeot, Luc J. A. (2006). Growing better cities: urban agriculture for sustainable development. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa.
REFERENCES · 111
Müller, Christa (2004). “Interkulturella trädgårdar i ett mångkulturellt samhälle”, in Tidningen Utemiljö/Gröna Fakta, 8/2004. [Inter-cultural gardens in a multi-cultural society]
Nahapiet, Janine & Ghoshal, Sumantra (1998). “Social Capital, Intellectual Capi-tal, and the Organizational Advantage”, in The Academy of Management Re-view, 23 (2), pp. 242-266.
Newman, Kathe & Wyly, Elvin K. (2006). “The right to stay put, revisited: gentri-fication and resistance to displacement in New York City”, in Urban Studies, 43 (1), pp. 23-57.
Niemeijer, David & de Groot, Rudolf S. (2008). “Framing environmental indica-tors: moving from causal chains to causal networks”, in Environment, Develop-ment and Sustainability, 10 (1), pp. 89-106.
Nowotny, Helga; Scott, Peter & Gibbons, Michael (2001). Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Olivegren, Johannes (1975). Brukarplanering : ett litet samhälle föds: hur 12 hushåll i Göteborg planerade sitt område och sina hus i kvarteret Klostermuren på Hi-singen. Olivergrens arkitektkontor AB / FFNS-gruppens förlag, Göteborg. [User planning: a small community is born]
Olsson, Lina (2008). Den självorganiserade staden: appropriation av offentliga rum i Rinkeby. Institutionen för arkitektur och byggd miljö, LTH, Lunds universitet, Lund. [The self-organised city]
Olsson, Sören (1985). “Det lilla grannskapet”, in Bäck-Wiklund, Margareta & Lindfors, Hans, (Eds.): Arbetets organisering, människans försörjning: vänbok till Bengt G. Rundblad. Göteborg University, Göteborg. [The small neighbour-hood]
Olsson, Sören; Sondén, Gerd Cruse & Ohlander, Marianne (1997). Det lilla grann-skapet: gårdar, trapphus & socialt liv. Centrum för byggnadskultur i västra Sve-rige, Chalmers & Göteborgs universitet, Göteborg. [The small neighbourhood]
Ostrom, Elinor (1990). Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. The political economy of institutions and decisions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ostrom, Elinor (2000). “Social capital: a fad or a fundamental concept?” in Das-gupta, Partha & Serageldin, Ismail, (Eds.): Social Capital: A Multifaceted Per-spective. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank, Washington.
Ostrom, Elinor (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Oxford English Dictionary (2009). “Oxford English Dictionary Online”, Oxford University Press. Retrieved 9 January, 2009, from http://dictionary.oed.com/.
Parks & People Foundation (2000). Neighborhood open space management: A report on greening strategies in Baltimore and six other cities. Parks & People Foundation, Baltimore.
Peterman, William (1996). “The Meanings of Resident Empowerment: Why Just About Everybody Thinks It’sa Good Idea and What It Has to Do with Resi-dent Management”, in Housing Policy Debate, 7 (3), pp. 473–490.
Pudup, Mary Beth (2008). “It takes a garden: Cultivating citizen-subjects in organ-ized garden projects”, in Geoforum, 39 (3), pp. 1228-1240.
Purcell, Mark (2002). “Excavating Lefebvre: The right to the city and its urban politics of the inhabitant”, in GeoJournal, 58 (2/3), pp. 99-108.
112
Putnam, Robert D. (2000). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster, New York.
Putnam, Robert D.; Leonardi, Robert & Nanetti, Raffaella (1993). Making democ-racy work civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Prince-ton.
Queiroz, Marina (2009). Urban agriculture / agricultural urbanity: om stadsodling, urban och peri-urban agrikultur, för en mindre klimatbelastande och energik-rävande matproduktion. Department of Urban and Rural Development, SLU (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
Ramadier, Thierry (2004). “Transdiscipinarity and its challenges: the case of urban studies”, in Futures, 36, pp. 423-439.
Redwood, Mark, (Ed.) (2008). Agriculture in urban planning: generating liveli-hoods and food security. Earthscan, Sterling.
Richardson, Laurel (2000). “Writing: a method of inquiry”, in Denzin, Norman K. & Lincoln, Yvonna S., (Eds.): Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edition.Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. xx, 1065, 46, 11.
Rosol, Marit (2005). “Community gardens - a potential for stagnating and shrink-ing cities? Examples from Berlin”, in Die Erde, 136 (2), pp. 165-178.
Rådberg, Johan (1994). Den svenska trädgårdsstaden. T1994:26. Statens råd för byggnadsforskning, Stockholm.
SABO, Sveriges Allmännyttiga Bostadsföretag & HGF, Hyresgästföreningen (1986). Riktlinjer för bostadshyresgästernas inflytande och fritidsverksamhet: Rekommendation (Guidelines for the tenants’ influence and leisure activities: Re-commendation). Central framework agreement with recommendations for local agreements, signed by the Swedish Association of Municipal Housing Compa-nies and The Union of Tenants. [Guidelines for the tenants’ influence and leisure activities: Recommendation]
Saldivar-Tanaka, Laura & Krasny, Marianne E. (2004). “Culturing community development, neighborhood open space, and civic agriculture: The case of La-tino community gardens in New York City”, in Agriculture and Human Values(21), pp. 399-412.
Sampson, Robert J. & Raudenbush, Stephen W. (1999). “Systematic Social Obser-vation of Public Spaces: A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods”, in American Journal of Sociology, 105 (3), pp. 603-51.
Schmelzkopf, K. (1995). “Urban community gardens as contested space”, in Geo-graphical Review, 85 (3), pp. 364-381.
Schmidtbauer, Pia (2008). “Odling som vardagskultur”, in Gröna Fakta (Tidningen Uterum), 5/2008.
Schukoske, Jane E. (2000). “Community Development through Gardening: State and Local Policies Transforming Urban Open Space”, in Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 3 (2), pp. 351-392.
Schön, Donald A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York.
Severson, Rebecca (1990). “United we sprout: a Chicago community garden story”, in Francis, Mark & Hester, Randolph T., (Eds.): The meaning of gar-dens: idea, place, and action. MIT Press, Cambridge (US), pp. ix, 283.
Skidmore, Paul; Bound, Kirsten & Lownsbrough, Hannah (2006). Communityparticipation: Who benefits? Joseph Rountree Foundation, York.
REFERENCES · 113
Smeets, Edith & Weterings, Rob (1999). Environmental indicators: Typology and overview. Technical report No 25. European Environment Agency, Copenha-gen.
Smets, Peer (2005). “Living apart of together? Multiculturalism at a neighbour-hood level”, in Community Development Journal, 41 (3), pp. 293-306.
Smith, Christopher M. & Kurtz, Hilda. E. (2003). “Community gardens and poli-tics of scale in New York City”, in Geographical Review, 93 (2), pp. 193-212.
Soidre-Brink, Tiiu (1987). Boendets förändring och kollektivt handlande. Sociolo-giska institutionen, Göteborgs universitet. [Housing transformation and collec-tive action]
SOU, Statens Offentliga Utredningar (2000). En uthållig demokrati!: politik för folkstyrelse på 2000-talet: Demokratiutredningens betänkande. Statens offentliga utredningar, 2000:1. Fritzes, Stockholm. [Sustainable democracy!]
Spiro, Rand J.; Vispoel, W.P.; Schmitz, J.G.; Samarapungavan, A. & Boerger, A.E. (1987). “Knowledge acquisition for application: cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains”, in Britton, B.K. & Glynn, S.M., (Eds.): Executive Control Processes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 177-199.
Staeheli, Lynn A.; Mitchell, Don & Gibson, Kristina (2002). “Conflicting rights to the city in New York’s community gardens”, in GeoJournal, 58 (2 - 3), pp. 197-205.
Stake, Robert E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE Publications, Lon-don (UK).
Stake, Robert E. (2000). “Case Studies”, in Denzin, Norman K. & Lincoln, Yvonna S., (Eds.): Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications Inc.
Starrin, Bengt; Larsson, Gerry; Dahlgren, Lars & Styrborn, Sven (1991). Från upp-täckt till presentation: om kvalitativ metod och teorigenerering på empirisk grund. Teori, forskning, praktik. Studentlitteratur, Lund.
Stehn, Ilona (2008). Tecken på liv: mänskliga spår i staden. Department of Urban and Rural Development, SLU (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences), Uppsala. [Signs of life: human traces in the city]
Stenberg, Jenny (2004). Planning in interplace? On time, power and learning in local activities aiming at social inclusion and sustainable development. Depart-ment of Architecture, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg.
Ståhle, Alexander (2005). Mer park i tätare stad: teoretiska och empiriska under-sökningar av stadsplaneringens mått på friytetillgång. Arkitekturskolan KTH, Stockholm.
Ståhle, Alexander (2008). Compact sprawl: exploring public open space and con-tradictions in urban density. Trita-ARK. Akademisk avhandling, 2008:6. KTH School of Architecture, Stockholm.
Sundling, Janne (1999). Levande självförvaltning; ett reportage om bostäder och demokrati. Boinstitutet, Stockholm.
Swedish Government (1997). Självförvaltning (Self-management). Governmental proposition 1996/97:119, Stockholm. [Self-management]
Söderberg, Annika (2009). The Allotment Plot: osäkrande som designstrategi. De-partment of Landscape architecture, SLU, Alnarp.
Thuvander, Liane (2004). Building for sustainable development: 10 case studies from Göteborg, Sweden. Stadsbyggnadskontoret / Fastighetskontoret, City of Göteborg.
114
Torseke Hulthén, Kerstin (2000). Bra bostadsgårdar: här vill vi bo! Stad & land 164. Svensk byggtjänst, Stockholm. [Good residential yards]
Tranel, Mark & Handlin, Larry B. Jr. (2006). “Metromorphosis : Documenting Change”, in Journal of Urban Affairs, 28 (2), pp. 151-167.
Treebranch Network (n.d.). “New York’s Community Gardens; A History”. Neighborhood Open Space Coalition, New York. Retrieved 2005-02-21 from http://www.treebranch.com/community_gardens.htm.
Tunstall, Rebecca (2001). “Devolution and user participation in public services: How they work and what they do”, in Urban Studies, 38 (13), pp. 2495-2514.
Twiss, J.; Dickinson, J.; Duma, S.; Kleinman, T.; Paulsen, H. & Rilveria, L. (2003). “Community gardens: Lessons learned from California healthy cities and com-munities”, in American Journal of Public Health, 93 (9), pp. 1435-1438.
Tyrväinen, Liisa; Pauleit, Stephan; Seeland, Klaus & de Vries, Sjerp (2005). “Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees”, in Konijnendijk, Cecil C., et al., (Eds.): Urban forests and trees: a reference book. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 81-114.
Tönnies, Ferdinand (1887/1957). Community and Society (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft). Harper & Row, New York.
Törnquist, Anders (2001). Till förortens försvar: utveckling och organisering i de tre stadsdelarna Hjällbo, Hammarkullen, Eriksbo 1970-1995. Institutionen för soci-alt arbete, Göteborgs Universitet, Göteborg. [Defending the suburb: develop-ment and organising in three city districts]
Uggla, Cathrine (1993). Forskning om boendeinflytande: en litteraturöversikt.Forskningsrapport / Statens institut för byggnadsforskning. SB, 64. Statens insti-tut för byggnadsforskning, Gävle. [Research about resident influence: a literature review]
UN-Habitat, United Nations Human Settlements Programme (1996). “The Habi-tat Agenda : Goals and Principles, Commitments and the Global Plan of Ac-tion”, in the proceedings of United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), Istanbul 30-31 May.
UNCED, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992). Agenda 21. United Nations, New York.
Uphoff, Norman (2000). “Understanding social capital: learning from the analysis and experience of participation”, in Dasgupta, Partha & Serageldin, Ismail, (Eds.): Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank, Washington.
Uschanov, T.P. (2002). “Ernest Gellner’s Criticism of Wittgenstein and ordinary language philosophy”, in Kitching, Gavin & Pleasants, Nigel, (Eds.): Marx and Wittgenstein: Knowledge, Morality and Politics. Routledge Studies in Social and Political Thought. Routledge.
Warner, Sam B. Jr. (1987). To Dwell is to Garden: A History of Boston’s Commu-nity Gardens. Northeatern University Press, Boston.
Wassenberg, Frank (2004). “Renewing stigmatised estates in the Netherlands: a framework for image renewal strategies”, in Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 19 (3), pp. 271-292.
WCED, World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our com-mon future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Webster, Chris (2003). “The nature of the neighbourhood”, in Urban Studies, 40 (13), pp. 2591-2612.
REFERENCES · 115
Wellman, Barry (1979). “The Community Question: The Intimate Networks of East Yorkers”, in American Journal of Sociology, 84 (5), pp. 1201-1231.
Wennberg, Niklas (2008). Stadsproduktion av livsmedel: klimatanpassat entrepre-nörskap och strategisk markanvändning? Förstudie kring stadsnära produktion av livsmedel. Västra Götalandsregionen, Göteborg. [Urban food production]
Werquin, Ann Caroll; Duhem, Bernard; Lindholm, Gunilla; Opperman, Bettina; Pauleit, Stephan & Tjallingii, Sybrand (2005). COST Action C11: Green struc-ture and urban planning: Final report. EUR (Brussels), 21731. Office for Offi-cial Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Viljoen, André, (Ed.) (2005). Continous productive urban landscapes: designing urban agriculture for sustainable cities. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Wrong, Dennis H. (1979/2002). Power: its forms, bases, and uses. Third edition, with a new introduction by the author. Transaction Publishers, New Jersey.
Yin, Robert K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Ödmann, Ella (1986). Bakom fasaden: om arkitektelevers kunskaper och värde-ringar. Statens institut för byggnadsforskning / LiberFörlag, Gävle / Stockholm. [Behind the façade: on architect students’ knowledge and values]
116
APPENDICES · 117
Appendices
A. Example of interview guide in the overview survey – interview with housing company
B. Example of interview guide in the overview survey – interview with involved tenant
C. Example of interview guide in the case study – interview with non-involved tenant
D. Table of interview persons in the case study
E. Questionnaire to tenants in the case study
F. Profiles of returned questionnaires
G. Dates and clock times of observations
H. Description of the case study area and the yards
118
APPENDIX AExample of interview guide in the overview survey – telephone interview with housing company
Short presentation of myself and the project
Company’s profile: How many estates and apartments in Göteborg? Which types of areas? Brief history… Continuity in management forms? Belong to corporate group?
Open space management: Under own auspices? Contractors? How is it organised? Local offices? Teams? Size of units? How are contacts with tenants handled?
Tenant involvement: Any involvement processes? Formal agreements? Other contacts with local organisations/groups/individuals? Other types of tenant influence? (Questionnaires? Consulta-tions?)Policies? Documents? Can I get in contact with active tenants or local managers?
Can I call you back if I have more questions?
APPENDICES · 119
APPENDIX BExample of interview guide in the overview survey – telephone interview with involved tenant
Short presentation of myself and the project
About the group now: Types of activities Number of actively involved, appr. age, women/men, cultural background? How much time is spent? Economic budget? Material or other support?
Organisation: Board or other representatives? Formal routines for meetings, applications, etc.? Contracts? Economic compensation, rent reduction? Individual/collective? Contact person/cooperation partner at the company? The Un-ion of Tenants? Other organisations?
Distribution of responsibilities and power: Maintenance, design, economic planning – who does what? How much do you control yourselves? Who else decides things?
Conflicts:With the company? Other residents? Within the group? …
Why are you involved? What does it cost (time, effort…)? What are the rewards for you?
What are the outcomes of the involvement process (for the yard and for the residents)? Social effects? Effects on the physical environment?
How has the process developed in recent years?
What do you think about the future? Recruitment What would you like to change?
120
APPENDIX CExample of interview guide in the case study – in-depth interview with non-involved tenant
(Hand out information letter. Put the satellite photo on the table. Check that it is okay to start recorder.)
The area: How long have you lived in the area? How do you like living here? Which places in the area are important to you (mark out on the map)? Which places do you use and how? Which places are nice/ugly, safe/unsafe, pleasant/unpleasant, etc.?
How do you use the yard: Sitting, resting, having coffee? Meeting neighbours, talking? Playing, watching children? Doing practical work (laundry, cleaning carpets, mending things…)? Garden work? Organised activities (barbeques, parties, …)? Viewing it from the window (viewing people/greenery)? Who else uses the yard and how?
More on the yard: What is important to you? What would you like to be added? What is not important?
Yard management: Who plans, designs, maintains it? Who decides? Where can you go if you have complaints/suggestions? Have you ever tried to influence the management? Tell me all about it…
Tenant involvement groups: If you compare the yards in the area, what are the differences between yards with and without yard groups? - how it looks and what it contains
APPENDICES · 121
- how it is used - safety and amenity - social cohesion and conflicts
Would you consider getting involved in a yard group? What would motivate you?
Social networking: How many neighbours do you know? How well? How did you get to know them? Would you like to know more of your neighbours? What are the benefits of knowing neighbours? Are there possible disadvantages?
What advantages and disadvantages can you think of regarding liv-ing in a private house with a private garden, as compared to how you live here?
(Finish by noting: age group, sex, household type, occupancy, country of birth, type of dwelling.)
122
APPENDIX DList of interview persons in the case study
Interviewee Age Sex
Yar
d Dwelling Born Household Y
ears
in
the
area
Occupation Invo
lved
Local manager 20-39 m - - Sweden - 3-5 - -
Maintenanceworker
40-64 m - - Sweden - 0-2 - -
Maintenanceworker
40-64 m - - Sweden - > 6 - -
Management director
40-64 m - - Sweden - - - -
“Carlos” 40-64 m A row house World with children 3-5 working no
“Claudia” 40-64 f A row house World with children 3-5 working no
“Cristina” 40-64 f A apartment World with children > 6 studying no
“Gunilla” 40-64 f B apartment Sweden couple 0-2 ‘at home’ no
“Ingalill” 40-64 f B apartment Sweden couple > 6 ‘at home’ no
“Lena” 20-39 f B row house Europe with children > 6 working yes
“Maryam” 20-39 f B apartment World couple 3-5 studying no
“Kourosh” 20-39 m B apartment World couple 3-5 studying no
“Peyman” 40-64 m C row house World with children 0-2 working yes
“Amir” 20-39 m C row house World with children 3-5 studying yes
“Siv” 65+ f C apartment Sweden single > 6 ‘at home’ no
“Bengt” 40-64 m D row house Sweden with children > 6 working yes
“Laszlo” 40-64 m D row house Europe with children > 6 working no
“Anna-Karin” 40-64 f D row house Sweden with children > 6 working yes
“Tanya” 0-6 f A row house Sweden - > 6 - -
“Jonathan” 13-19 m B row house Sweden - > 6 - -
“Christian” 13-19 m D row house Sweden - > 6 - -
“Josefin” 13-19 f D row house Sweden - > 6 - -
“Anton” 13-19 m D row house Sweden - > 6 - -
“Thomas” 13-19 m - row house Sweden - > 6 - -
Clarifications: The first section lists the four interviewed management employees; the second lists the interviewed adult residents; the third lists the interviewed children and youth. Born refers to country of birth, where Europe means European country other than Sweden and World means country outside Europe. Time in the area refers to how many years management employees have been working and residents have been living in the area. Occupation labelled ‘at home’ refers to the interviewees being, e.g., pensioners, unemployed or on long-term sick leave, i.e. formally neither working nor studying. Involved refers to whether the interviewee is involved in a yard association or informal group dealing with open space management.
APPENDICES · 123
APPENDIX EQuestionnaire to tenants in the case study A four-page folder distributed in envelopes. Here translated into English and reprinted at appr. 70% of original size.
124
APPENDICES · 125
126
APPENDICES · 127
APPENDIX FProfile of returned questionnaires
Returned questionnaires Ratio
Compara-tive figure*
Total number of questionnaires 81 100.0% –
Yard A 22 27.5% 29.1%
B 23 28.8% 23.0%
C 14 17.5% 24.0%
D 21 26.3% 24.0%
Type of dwelling apartment 53 66.3% 67.9%
row house 27 33.8% 32.1%
Sex female 56 70.0% 53.6%
male 24 30.0% 46.4%
Place of birth Sweden 29 44.6% 42.6%
other European country 15 23.1% 23.2%
country outside Europe 21 32.3% 34.2%
Age group 0-24 7 9.0% 40.8%
25-44 26 33.3% 24.3%
45-64 33 42.3% 25.9%
65 + 12 15.4% 9.0%
Type of household single 20 25.0% –two adults, no children 12 15.0% –more than two adults, no children 10 12.5% –adults and children 38 47.5% –
0-2 years 10 13,0% –3-5 years 17 22.1% –6-9 years 17 22.1% –10-19 years 19 24.7% –
Years living in the area
20-25 years 14 18.2% –*) The comparative figure shows… …regarding yard: Its share of the dwellings in the four studied yards (own inventory). …regarding type of dwelling: the distribution between apartments and row houses on the four yards (own inventory). …regarding sex, age group and place of birth: the shares in the whole housing area, according to Göteborgsbladet 2004.Comparative figures regarding type of household and years living in the area are not avail-able.
128
APPENDIXGDates and clock times of momentary observations on the four case study yards
Dates of momentary observations.
Clock times of momentary observations on the four yards (referred to as G1-G4).
APPENDICES · 129
APPENDIX HDescription of Angered Centrum and the four case study yards
Figure 1. Satellite image of Göteborg with approximate locations of An-gered-Bergum and Angered Centrum marked.
Angered, a city district in Göteborg Angered1 can be described as a conglomerate of large-scale housing enclaves spread out around the hilly forests north-east of Göteborg. Until the late 1960s it was its own municipality, with hardly any built-up areas, when it was incorporated into the rapidly expanding City of Göteborg. A venture plan, typical at the time, was rapidly proceeded, outlining the development of a whole new modern city district of up to 300,000 inhabitants, which is a re-markably high number (City of Göteborg, 1968). However, the rapid popula-tion growth suddenly flattened out in the 1970s, partly as a result of the oil crisis and consequent decline of the city’s main industries, and so the devel-opment of Angered stopped. In just a few years the rural parish had been
1 Today, the name Angered is no longer used in the city’s jurisdiction, but in daily speech it corresponds generally to the western, urban parts of the two neighbouring city districts Gun-nared and Lärjedalen, i.e. similar to the current church parish of Angered or the former municipality of Angered.
130
transformed into a city district, albeit a remote and spread-out one. Today it is the home of approximately 50,000 inhabitants (City of Göteborg, 2006) and can be said to be the most geographically peripheral urban node in Göteborg; see Figure 1.
The common characterisation of Angered as a ‘suburb’, in the sense of a district with stigmatised large-scale housing areas, is a central and urgent issue for its inhabitants. Ove Sernhede begins the chapter about “the social iconog-raphy of the suburb” in his book Alienation is my nation (2002) with an illus-trative quotation from 19-year-old ‘Little Milton’:
Everyone thinks Angered is just a lot of robberies and assaults and that kind of shit, but they haven’t been there.
Although similar feelings were also expressed in many of the interviews in the present study the specific housing area where it takes part, called Angered Centrum, has a relatively better reputation than several of the surrounding enclaves.
The housing area of Angered Centrum Angered Centrum is a housing area of about 500 rental dwellings distributed over eleven housing ‘blocks’; see Figure 2. The housing area is also connected to a centre formation with a shopping mall, a community centre with theatre and library, schools, sports facilities and health care centre, as well as other public and commercial services. There is also a terminal station for the tram-ways where inhabitants of areas further away, such as Gårdsten, Lövgärdet and Rannebergen, switch to buses. In short, Angered Centrum is situated right beside the commercial, cultural and logistic hub of the whole of An-gered.
There are also many green areas in the area. South-west of the housing area a small municipal park, named for its dried-up pond, is worn and rather un-used except by some groups of frequent visitors, normally referred to as ‘drunks’. From the ‘pond’, the views open over a larger grass field (the ‘mead-ow’) towards the picturesque farming landscapes of the river valley of Lärjeån. When the residents of Angered Centrum talk about the ‘valley’, however, they refer to a steep gully with dense vegetation which constitutes a rather abrupt edge of the housing area to the south. Although the gully offers beautiful nature scenery (particularly during the anemone blooming in May) for those who walk along its pathways, the area is shunned by almost all the residents, who claim they fear drug addicts. The woody hill in the north-west and other places around are not mentioned by the residents to the same ex-tent.
The Angered Centrum housing area is owned and managed by the munici-pal housing company Poseidon, which is also the city’s largest housing com-pany, with 23,500 dwellings in the city. As described in the previous section, Poseidon has also initiated the project Local democracy and self-management(LDS), which aims at encouraging tenants to form yard associations. There are two such yard associations in Angered Centrum, both of which grew from previously informal processes by which tenants became involved in managing the yards. Where there are no yard associations, the company’s official policy is to encourage their tenants to start yard associations. In Angered Centrum,
APPENDICES · 131
there is a routine whereby local managers invite the tenants of each yard to a yard meeting in the spring, where problems and ideas can be discussed. At these meetings, if there is no yard association, the managers usually offer help and support if the tenants want to plant flowers.
Most of the yards in Angered Centrum follow a common design concept, even if the detailed layout differs from yard to yard. The yards are relatively small, approximately 26-27 x 35-40 m if measured from wall to wall. They are framed by four house volumes, leaving open passages in the corners. The western and northern volumes are three to four-storey apartment houses while two-storey row houses are placed to the east and south. All entrances are on the yard side and the apartment houses have balconies facing the yard. The row houses also have small private front yards on the yard side. An as-phalt pathway along the house sides is used for most movement. The main part of the yard is divided into a number of patches with different functions and contents, often demarcated by low wooden fences and sometimes ter-raced with concrete revetments; see Figure 3. Normally there is a small grass lawn, a swing set, a sandbox, an asphalt ground, a sitting group, a barbeque, a flower urn and a number of trees.
Figure 2. The housing area of Angered Centrum.
THE ’MEADOW’
THE ’VALLEY’
THE ’POND’
THE ’SQUARE’
132
Figure 3. One of the yards in the area, seen from the south-east corner.
An intuitive but very accurate reflection by a recently immigrated resident captures the discrepancy between the community-building intentions of the neighbourhood planning discourse, resulting in an area like Angered Cen-trum, and the more individualistically independent culture which de facto pre-vails:
Maybe the architect had thought that these people would have something to do with each other. Maybe that was the idea, that it would become a nice lit-tle yard where everyone ‘hello’ like that. But now it isn’t like that […] …everyone still encloses themselves in their houses.
Brief presentation of the four yards The A yard is the largest in the area, amounting to almost 1,500 square metres. Its layout follows the area’s typical pattern of a larger grass lawn, a fenced swing set and mountain ashes on one side, and more paved ground with a sandbox, sitting groups and a barbeque on the other side. Where there were previously horse chestnut trees in the northern part, small Japanese cherry trees have recently been planted. The impression of the yard is that it is more open and ‘cleaner’ than the others, which may partly derive from the fact that it is relatively plane and thereby almost lacks the high revetments characteris-ing most yards in the area. Carlos and Claudia, a middle-aged couple living on the A yard, express a desire for more vegetation:
– If you look, it is very dull and boring to view this yard. – If you compare to the other… – You compare to the other, that they are so nice and there are flowers and… that’s all. – We don’t have so much on this yard.
APPENDICES · 133
No tenants are involved in the management on the A yard, which makes it almost unique in the area. Moreover, neither managers nor residents can re-member there ever being any involvement. Only a few households were pre-sent at the annual yard meeting, which the local managers as well as partici-pating tenants complained about. One of the managers introduced the yard as a “problem child”, stressing that problems with littering, etc. cannot be solved without better engagement from the tenants. Carlos and Claudia did not at-tend the meeting, but also regret that there is little engagement and little so-cial exchange among the residents on the yard. They also establish that the yard is used less in comparison to other yards:
– There aren’t many who use the yard. – It’s only the children who are out there. – I haven’t seen anyone barbequing, for example. – No, never.– Or drinking coffee or something.
However, they still appreciate their yard due to its calmness and absence of conflicts:
– It is very quiet and nice in that way, pleasant and calm. We never have here any quarrels, any problems…
The A yard:
Open space area: 1,490m2
No. of apartments: 38
No. of row houses: 19
Open space area per household: 26m2
Proportion of ground covered with plants: 35%
No. of trees: 12
No. of flower beds: 5
Sitting places: Two sitting groups with tables
Play equipment: Swing set, sandbox
Figure 4. Axonometric perspective and facts on the A yard.
134
The B yard:
Open space area: 1,280m2
No. of apartments: 30
No. of row houses: 16
Open space area per household: 28m2
Proportion of ground covered with plants: 24%
No. of trees: 7
No. of flower beds: 25
Sitting places: Two sitting groups with tables, five benches, one table
Play equipment: Swing set, sandbox, ‘play house’
Figure 5. Axonometric perspective and facts on the B yard.
On the B yard, the grass lawn is more fragmented than on most yards and fewer of the trees remain. Several of the informants also state that the B yard is much less green than other yards, and the share of residents who reply in the questionnaire that they are dissatisfied with their yard and would rather live on another yard is much higher here. The questionnaire further supports that the residents on the B yard value more greenery and flowers higher than residents on other yards do. One of the residents, Lena, talks at length about her negative image of the yard:
It’s awful. It’s so hostile to children. Well we have… we have a wall in the middle of the yard where the kids, every kid from the day they learn to walk, fall down and hurt themselves.[…] It’s not a cosy yard, this. And then we lost almost all the play equipment. […] And then we have a lot of asphalt on the yard. I wish we had a grass yard […] And then we have no bushes either, cause someone got the idea that we should take them all away, that it would be better…
Lena is also one of the key persons in the informal yard group that plants a great deal of flowers on the yard every spring and tends the plantings during the summer. The group is informal in that there are no written agreements on a definite division of responsibilities between the involved tenants and the local managers. Although there has never been a formal group, there has long been a tradition of informal involvement on the B yard. However, several of the most active households have moved from the area in recent years. The procedure is that Lena and her neighbour ask the local manager for a check to
APPENDICES · 135
buy flowers and post a flyer advertising a ‘planting day’. Many residents, espe-cially those living in the row houses, join the work on the planting day, but only five households constitute the core group that maintains the flower beds and meets regularly to socialise.
In contrast to the other yards, the C yard gives a much more lush and diverse impression, which is primarily owing to the trellises integrated into the stan-dard fencing and the plants climbing on them. The C yard was recently reno-vated, partly as a concession to the tenants after a long period of low invest-ment and partly as a pilot project to see how the other yards could be up-graded. The renovation was carried out by the existing management staff, and tenants were asked to propose ideas. Although the basic structure remains the same, some things have been altered: The previous asphalt grounds in the middle of the yard were dug up and replaced with grass, a flagpole was raised, some fixed benches were placed together with a flower urn in the south-east corner, the trellises and new flower beds were added, some curb stones were removed, and the yard now has more playing equipment than most other yards have. Some of the interviewed residents living on other yards mention the C yard as a beautiful one. In a way, it also makes it a bit more intimate. As a resident on another yard states:
[The C yard] is a bit more difficult to pass through than the others, all others are somehow freer… On [the C yard] it is somehow planned where the flow-ers should be and where to plant…
The C yard:
Open space area: 1,420m2
No. of apartments: 35
No. of row houses: 12
Open space area per household: 30m2
Proportion of ground covered with plants: 45%
No. of trees: 13
No. of flower beds: 15
Sitting places: Three sit-ting group with tables, three benches
Play equipment: Swing set, sandbox, play set with slide, two horse springs
Additional: flag pole, trellises
Figure 6. Axonometric perspective and facts on the C yard.
136
There is a yard association on the C yard, which was started a couple of years ago with the objective to improve and maintain the open spaces. Before the yard association was started, an informal involvement process had existed a long time. The informal yard group consisted of an older Swedish woman and a number of members of a large Latin-American family, who would plant summer flowers every year and tend some perennial flower beds. At the mo-ment, however, the involvement in gardening has faded away in the yard asso-ciation, partly as an effect of changes in the group of active residents and partly due to the company’s upgrading of the yard. Still, some fragments of the residents’ own engagement can be found, such as a couple of flower beds. But the yard association’s main interest for the present season is in the hobby room they built in a previous storage area beside the laundry room. The local managers also express dissatisfaction with the yard association’s apparent ne-glect of the work with weeding and picking up litter which they used to do. It is clear that the relatively high amount of flowers and greenery on the C yard is not primarily owing to the involvement of tenants, although the yard asso-ciation and its activities affect the use of the yard.
The D yard has a unique shape, extending mainly in the east-west direction, but its principal layout is similar to the other yards. The yard’s subdivision is emphasised by hedges of bushes, even though some of these are worn and sparse. Wooden flower boxes placed around the yard are a sign of involve-ment activities there. The row houses on the southern side are larger than the standard size in the area, and several families with four or more children live here. Some of these large households also constitute the core of the yard asso-ciation.
A group of residents on the D yard has been involved in open space man-agement since the late 1990s. In the beginning, the group collected money from the neighbours to buy flowers; after a while, however, they realised they could ask the local managers to get support from the company. It became one of the earliest involvement processes which were institutionalised through the LDS project, and the yard association has been subject to journalistic report-age as well as a previous research study (Bengtsson et al., 2003). It is typically described as a success story of how tenant involvement can create amenity and social cohesion. At present, there are about seven households involved in the continuous maintenance work, organised as individual responsibilities for dif-ferent patches. More households may participate in flower planting days and some other activities arranged by the yard association. The yard association has also built a hobby room with a bicycle and carpentry workshop in the basement of one of the houses. According to a resident on another yard, the D yard is “the best yard in the whole area”, and this is thanks to the yard asso-ciation:
It is the most well-kept, because they have a yard association […] I think it is because they have a yard association. They have a bicycle workshop, they have a… And then it is of course the kind of people who live there, they are industrious people and to get a well-functioning good yard, you need indus-trious people.
The observations show that the D yard is the one where one is most likely to find adults outdoors. There is a sitting group placed along the pathway in the
APPENDICES · 137
south-western part of the yard (almost fully hidden in Figure 7), which seems to be used much more than any other sitting group in the area. It is placed where a displacement in the row house building creates a protected corner with a view over the rest of the yard. Several of the most active families live close to this place.
The D yard:
Open space area: 1,200m2
No. of apartments: 30
No. of row houses: 17
Open space area per household: 26m2
Proportion of ground covered with plants: 25%
No. of trees: 12
No. of flower beds: 13
Sitting places: One sitting group with table, four benches, two table
Play equipment: Swing set, sandbox, slide
Additional: carpet-beating rack, bushes
Figure 7. Axonometric perspective and facts on the D yard.
References Bengtsson, Bo; Berger, Tommy; Fransson, Niklas; Lind, Jan-Erik & Modh, Birgit
(2003). Lokal kontroll och kollektivt handlande: en utvärdering av självförvalt-ning i Bostads AB Poseidon i Göteborg. Institutet för bostads- och urbanforsk-ning, Uppsala universitet, Gävle. [Local control and collective action]
City of Göteborg (1968). Generalplan för Angered-Bergum. Stadsbyggnadskonto-ret, City of Göteborg. [Master Plan for Angered-Bergum]
City of Göteborg (2006). "Göteborgsbladet 2009: majversionen", Statistik Göte-borg, City of Göteborg. Retrieved 2009-10-22, from http://www.goteborg.se/prod/G-info/statistik.nsf/
Sernhede, Ove (2002). Alienation is my nation: hiphop och unga mäns utanförskap i Det nya Sverige. Ordfront, Stockholm. [Alienation is my nation: hip hop and the exclusion of young men in The New Sweden ]
