Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems: 33(6); 503 ...€¦ · Urban Agriculture are highly context-dependent and that every city must have its own way of setting up Urban Agriculture

Community gardening in Stockholm:participation, driving forces and the roleof the municipalityMadeleine Bonow* and Maria Normark

School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Södertörn University, Stockholm, Sweden*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Accepted 8 December 2017;First published online 15 January 2018 Themed Content: Critical Foodscapes

AbstractThe paper reports on a study of community gardening in Stockholm. We contribute to the body of knowledge about thesustainability of community gardens and this new form of citizen-led initiatives in Stockholm, with the ambition of creatinga debate about the best way to sustain and develop these initiatives in Sweden.We argue that although community gardeningmay provide leverage for means of developing a sustainable city, it is a marginal phenomenon and contributes little to sus-tainable development its present form. Through interviews we have investigated how the citizens and municipality officers ofStockholm try to adapt to the renewed interest in community gardening by looking at the policy makers’, municipalityofficers’ and grassroots movements’ incentives to start community gardens. We specifically focus on how the community gar-deners articulate their reasons for participating in collaborative initiatives in the city and how these expectations evolve whenthey are facedwith the reality of gardening and the problems relating to producing food in the city. We have found that thereare a growing number of citizens and local authorities advocating communitygardening, but the sustainability and enduranceof gardens are hampered by vague responsibilities, lack of leadership and unclear expectations of the outcome. Communitygardening cases in Stockholm contribute to the debate by exemplifying how formal (e.g. policy making) and informal advo-cacy (e.g. civic engagement in community gardening) groups are collaborating, but also showing that they often have differentagendas and initial motivations for setting up new gardens. We argue that uncritical enthusiasm results in an overly instru-mental approach to governance of communitygardening and that the sustainability and endurance of the communitygarden-ing is not an issue that the governing bodies plan for, and hence it is forgotten. We suggest some routes forward, involvingemploying facilitators from various stakeholders such as the municipality, housing companies and various NGOs.

Keywords: Community gardening, Stockholm, sustainability

Introduction

The paper reports on a study of community gardening inStockholm. We will contribute to the debate on the sus-tainability of community gardens and this new form ofcitizen-led initiatives in Stockholm, with the ambition ofcreating a debate about the best way to sustain anddevelop these initiatives in Sweden. We argue that thedeveloping practices surrounding this new wave of com-munity gardening are important to study because thedriving forces of participation may teach us importantlessons regarding incentives for urban development thatincorporate sustainability. This move is essential, notleast given that the United Nation’s SustainableDevelopment Goals stress the importance of access togreen environments as well as responsible consumption

and production. This paper explores the emergence ofcommunity gardening initiatives as a form of UrbanAgriculture in Stockholm and scrutinizes it by lookingat the citizens’ planning initiatives and the local adminis-trations’ attitudes towards community gardening. Of par-ticular interest are the motives and outcomes of suchinitiatives.

The new wave of gardening in the city

All over the world, cities are facing intense pressure toengage in sustainable development agendas, both fromhigher policy levels as well as from citizens (Evans et al.,2002; Bulkeley and Castán Broto, 2013; McCormicket al., 2013). However, as Hajer and Wagenaar (2003,p. 3) explain, governments often face ‘open-ended,

Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems: 33(6); 503–517 doi:10.1017/S1742170517000734

© Cambridge University Press 2018. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided theoriginal work is properly cited.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 29 Dec 2020 at 01:58:14, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use.

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.cambridge.org/core

unusual, ad hoc arrangements’ when seeking to promotesustainability as a goal (e.g., Brodhag, 1999; Block et al.,2013). Urban Agriculture has gained attractivenessbecause it responds to a range of urban issues that areoften linked to the central goal of creating a sustainablecity and the new sustainability goals (Mougeot, 2006;FAO, 2007; Mendes et al., 2008; Lovell, 2010; UN,2016). Reynolds (2008) defines Urban Agriculture as aglobal movement aimed at engaging people in collectivelydesigning, organizing, realizing and taking care of publicfarms and gardens in their own cities (Reynolds, 2008).Urban Agriculture is made up of a wide spectrum of tem-poral land use, ranging from permanent to short-term(Halloran and Magid, 2013). In general, these includecommunity gardens (McKay, 2011), urban allotments(Crouch and Ward, 1997) and guerrilla gardening spots(Tracey, 2007). Growing can be done through a broadarray of loosely-formalized or unstructured practices trans-forming neglected or void urban spaces into enjoyable, pul-sating places (Hou, 2010). The potential of UrbanAgriculture has been welcomed as a concrete and action-inducing strategy by many governments and institutionssince it is relatively easy to establish. Urban Agricultureinitiatives have therefore been discussed in many inter-national contexts recently, but less so in a Swedishcontext (Larsson, 2009; Nilsson and Wiman, 2015).Prové et al. (2016) argue that there is a prevailing assump-tion among scholars that the actual development of UrbanAgriculture projects and policies is of greater significancethan the impact, objectives and precise form of such initia-tives (Prové et al., 2016). The forms and organization ofUrban Agriculture are highly context-dependent and thatevery city must have its own way of setting up UrbanAgriculture initiatives (Ferris et al., 2001). Therefore, it isimportant to see each Urban Agriculture project asunique, as Urban Agriculture governance is dependenton city-specific circumstances (Prové et al., 2016).

Community gardening, stakeholders andgovernmentality

There are many stakeholders involved in UrbanAgriculture, ranging from citizens to authorities andhousing companies, as well as NGOs. UrbanAgriculture can cause tensions between stakeholders’various perspectives, including how they view thegardens and how they interpret their meaning. In thisstudy, we focus on community gardening, which is adistinct form of Urban Agriculture. Even though commu-nity gardening, household gardening and garden sharingare not market sources of local food, they provide theengaged households with local food access. To definewhat community gardens are, we use a definition byGlover (2003, p. 264) who says community gardens are‘organised initiative(s) whereby sections of land are usedto produce food or flowers in an urban environment forthe personal or collective benefit of their members who,

by virtue of their participation, share certain resourcessuch as space, tools and water’ (Glover, 2003, p. 264).Community gardens are therefore areas of land gardenedcollectively by a group of people. The literature oncommunity gardens tends to view ‘community’ as terri-torial and place-based, although there are also non-terri-torial food communities such as organized through socialmedia. Successful community gardens have been shownto develop their own community through the nurturingof social capital in three key areas. These areas are:(a) bonding social capital through providing a placewhere different types of people meet, (b) bridging socialcapital through membership of networking organizationsand (c) linking social capital via contact with other orga-nizations (Firth et al., 2011).Community gardening is discussed widely in the alter-

native food system literature. Seyfang and Smith (2007)suggest that these kinds of food projects are part of anincreasing number of small-scale, bottom-up projectsbeing led by community groups and individuals thatcollectively have the potential to engineer sustainabledevelopment. We look at community gardens throughthe lens of governmentality.1 Governance is importantto the development of community gardens, because theway an urban area is governed can ultimately influencehow land is managed and allocated, thereby affectingthe tenure of these spaces. Urban green spaces, such ascommunity gardens, are incredibly vulnerable to neo-liberal development policies, such as commercial develop-ments creating housing complexes and commercialcenters, malls, etc. Community gardening has been por-trayed as a part of the neoliberal strategy for gentrifica-tion processes, where community gardens are used tomake areas more attractive, which then increases neigh-boring housing prices (Voicu and Been, 2008; Tornaghi,2014). Similarly, it has also been portrayed as a meansto outsource public space maintenance to volunteercitizens (Knigge, 2009; Rosol, 2012; Tornaghi, 2014).Geography and planning literature has described the neo-liberal transformation of the city extensively, and this willnot be dwelt upon here (Harvey, 1989; Schmelzkopf,1995; Brenner and Theodore, 2002). However, originatingfrom Lefebvre’s work (2014), some scholars have inter-preted the community gardening movement as a manifest-ation of the increasing power of alternative urban cultureagainst the pervasiveness of neoliberal order (Purcell,2002; Rosol, 2010; Whitehead, 2013). Rosol (2010) hassaid that new forms of governance-beyond-the-statehave emerged, for instance, autonomously organized pro-jects and active citizen participation. This has led to an

1 We mean an additional horizontal approach to gain an understandingof underlying relationships, which constitute the people and institutions,where government is viewed not as a sole actor but, rather, as an assem-blage of diverse elements, practices and ways of thinking that is comingtogether to both frame and resolve problems within a population.

504 M. Bonow and M. Normark



increasing importance of non-state actors. According toRosol (2010), territorially defined local communities arerelevant actors in urban governance. This developmentgoes hand in hand with the rising importance of civicengagement (Rosol, 2010). Community gardening is alsoregarded as an opportunity for empowerment of citizens(Beck, 2001) and the alternative use of public spacesand is also understood as an expression of counterculturalpractices. Community gardens have been regarded bysome as a form of the ‘right to the city’ culture (Purcelland Tyman, 2014; Prové et al., 2016; Certomà andNotteboom, 2017). They can also be regarded as abattle for existing commons (Seitz, 2011; Tornaghi,2012; Colding and Barthel, 2013). Jessop (2002) suggestthat they are part of a new political tenet that ‘tends topromote ‘community’’ (p. 108). This political strand ofresearch has also been complemented by arguments thatcommunity gardening can be understood as an expressionof citizens’ willingness to give their voice to decisions onurban space planning (Prové et al., 2016; Certomà andNotteboom, 2017). Similarly, Tornaghi (2014) regardscommunity gardening as a spontaneous and grassrootsphenomenon that is anchored in urban countercultureand as a participatory tool to bridge the divide betweenpolicymakers and grassroots groups (Tornaghi, 2014).However, Certomà and Notteboom (2017) argue thatthe establishment of new community gardens has, in mostcases, been facilitated through the city council or privateactors as a form of governmentality (Certomà andNotteboom, 2017).In many cases, city governments focus on single projects

or experiments when implementing community gardeningpolicies. Support for community gardens is given throughtrial and error, instigating lengthy learning processes onhow to support and implement such initiatives, with deci-sions often only reached incrementally (Mintzberg et al.,1998; Teisman, 2000; Block et al., 2012). Explicit orclear-cut governance frameworks for communitygardens currently remain absent, incoherent or unclear.In many cases, policy making marginalizes communitygardens as food production without the consideration ofother relevant policy domains that embrace differentaspects of community gardens (Lovell, 2010).Various researchers have shown that the benefits of

taking part in a community garden are not limited tofood production. Community gardens are also importantfor community-building (Milbourne, 2012), improvinghealth through stimulating physical activity and consump-tion of fruits and vegetables (Wakefield et al., 2007), aswell as providing green, open spaces that contribute to bio-diversity (e.g. Miller, 2005; Colding and Barthel, 2013).

Project methodology

The community gardens that are studied in this paperwere set up between 2009–2014 on municipal land in

Stockholm. We took this approach because we wantedto study projects that had been running for at least acouple of seasons, mainly because it is hard to predictthe sturdiness of a newly started project and we wantedto draw on the experiences of established projects ratherthan learning about the process of setting up a newproject. We use community gardening in Stockholm as aqualitative case study. In order to investigate the commu-nity gardens’ sustainability and these new forms ofcitizen-led initiatives in Stockholm, an analysis of com-munity gardening initiatives in Stockholm has been con-ducted. Stockholm provides an interesting case study fortwo reasons. First, Stockholm’s community gardeninginitiatives are not well-represented in the internationalacademic literature; second, Stockholm’s urban structureis characterized by urban formal planning practices, andthe informality of the development of community garden-ing is a contrast to this official planning policy. This is notunique, but this has led to a rather ad hoc and unplannedapproach from the municipality to community gardening.In the following remainder of this section, we will give ageneral exploration of the development and character ofcommunity gardening in Stockholm and present theresults of our case study.Semi-structured interviews with key informants from

the community gardens included in the study have beenconducted both in groups varying from 5 to 12 people,conducted both on-site and in their community meetingsas well as individually. The participants gave their consentto use their names in the text when they are cited. We havealso undertaken participant observations at monthlymeetings held at the ‘Trädgård på spåret’ (authors’ trans-lation: Garden on the Tracks) and ‘Areal 127’ during thewinter season of 2015–2016. We participated in order tolearn about the planning process of running a communitygarden and to understand the obstacles and the gardenersthought and intentions of running a community garden.Field notes were gathered at these meetings. Field visitsto 15 gardens during the summer of 2015 and 2016 werealso conducted in order to gain a better picture of thegardens’ size, type of cultivation and the locality. Wealso posted an online survey in these gardens’ facebookgroups and 56 gardeners from different communitygardens in Stockholm participated. In the survey, ques-tions were asked about why they were involved in commu-nity gardening. These combined data sources have given abroad understanding of the experiences, attitudes andchallenges the gardeners were facing. Furthermore, weconducted telephone and email interviews with munici-pality officers in all the 14 districts in Stockholm in2014, 2015 and 2016, where questions were asked abouttheir thoughts on the phenomena of community gardenprojects in their districts. To develop a deeper understand-ing of the problems that the community gardens werefacing and how different municipalities around Swedenwere handling and managing community gardens, we par-ticipated in and attended other meetings, conferences and

505Community gardening in Stockholm



garden shows in different parts of Sweden. Again, thereason for attending was to develop a deeper understand-ing of the community gardening scene in Sweden, and thechallenges that community gardeners are facing. We havealso conducted an in-depth interview with a communitygarden facilitator in the town of Malmö, a city in thesouth of Sweden. The aim of this was to learn moreabout the role of facilitators, and other strategies tosustain community gardens that could be used inStockholm. It was also a way to discuss best practice forinvolving authorities in supporting gardening activities,thus improve the duration of the gardens. We have alsofollowed the community gardens via their facebookgroups to gain a deeper understanding of the communitygardening activities and the challenges that communitygardeners face with the day-to-day maintenance of thegardens.All data were then thematically analyzed to give us: (1)

an overall understanding of the varieties in practices andconditions that affect the organization of the gardens, and(2) more specifically the driving forces of the gardenersand other stakeholders to develop and maintain thegardens.

Results and analysis

The community garden context in Stockholm:a case study

There is little written about community gardening inStockholm, however, Björklund (2010) has found thatfood production initiatives in and around Swedish citiesare not new. Stockholm has a long history of publicgardens, (e.g. wartime gardens and allotment gardens);however, community gardens are a recent form of urbanfood growing projects, and they are mainly a 21st-century addition to the green space infrastructure in thecity (L. Näslund, personal communication, January 21,2016).The city of Stockholm is characterized by densely

populated areas, due to the lake Mälaren that restrictsthe growth of the inner city. The city takes up187.16 km2 of land, of which 40% are parks and uninhab-ited green spaces. The citizens of Stockholm are close totheir green spaces. More than 70% have park or naturewithin 200 m from their residence and 90% have itwithin <300 m (Borg, et al., 2013). The need for moregreen areas is not what inspired Stockholm inhabitantsto engage in community gardening per se, but rather thedesire to grow local produce and to experience social rela-tionships and place attachment, sense of togetherness andpurposefulness, and to have the pleasure of caring for thecity in unloved urban brownfields (Survey, 2016).In recent years, the interest in Urban Agriculture, espe-

cially community gardening, has increased significantly inthe city of Stockholm. Alongside the city’s popular allot-ment areas, there are new places where the locals have, on

their own initiative, become committed to cultivatinggardens together – on housing estates, parks and naturalareas, as well as on abandoned railway tracks (Å.Stenmark, personal communication, March 28, 2017).As has been stated in the introduction, this paper exploresthe emergence community gardening initiatives inStockholm and scrutinizes it by looking at the citizens’planning initiatives and the local administrations’ atti-tudes towards community gardening. Of particular inter-est are the motives and outcomes of such initiatives.Community gardening, as stated above, is a relativelynew concept in Stockholm. Other forms of UrbanAgriculture, like rooftop gardening, aquaponics and ver-tical gardening are even more rare and only in theirinfancy. Today, community gardening does not contributesubstantially to supply food to the city of Stockholm; thisis similar to community gardening practices in otherNorthern European cities (Halloran and Magid, 2013).According to one of the former board members of the

garden association ‘Trädgård på spåret,’ the first contem-porary collaborative community garden was establishedin Stockholm 7 years ago (K. Johansson, personal com-munication, November 2, 2015). Between 2010 and2016, interest in community gardening grew exponentiallyas a variety of community gardening projects were devel-oped and implemented. Simultaneously, awarenessamong the general public was raised. It was expressedin blogs and facebook pages, and therefore the mediacoverage of community gardening projects grew. Avariety of conferences and workshops were organized bydifferent organizations with outspoken ‘sustainable cityagendas’. Most projects have occurred independently ofone another, and there have been few, if any, attempts atcoordinating these ventures. According to the founder ofthe garden association ‘Areal 127,’ community gardeningin Stockholm has its roots in the renewed attention inurban green areas and guerrilla gardening by environmen-talists (A. Bulukin, personal communication, December3, 2015). These initiatives from the guerrilla gardenerswere intended as civic engagement that was able toattract public attention to the lack of available greenareas and their degradation. Most of them were intendedas symbolic gestures, mainly initiated by middle-classeducated people or citizen’s associations and contributedto the diffusion of gardening cultures and established con-tacts with relevant administrations (L. Näslund, memberof Trädgård på spåret garden association, personal com-munication, January 21, 2016). In 2013, a networkcalled ‘Urban Farming Stockholm’ started as a platformfor different organizations engaged in community garden-ing in and around the city. The people behind this networkwere all leading figures in the community gardeningmovement in the city. Due to its infancy, there was no city-wide vision for community gardening (A. Bulukin, per-sonal communication, December 3, 2015; andL. Näslund, personal communication, January 21,2016). Despite this, community gardening, although not




explicitly mentioned, fits into a variety of current munici-pal visions such as the planning documents ‘Den grönaPromenadstaden 2013’ [title in English: The green walk-able city 2013 – the Stockholm city plan]. Moreover,there are no previous laws designed to govern the practice.

The arrangement of the community gardens

The official stance among the municipal officers inStockholm was that community gardening contributesto its beautiful, well-kept, vibrant and safe environment,while generating social cohesion in the surrounding areaand that it affects the local environment in a positiveway through further social interaction and presence inthe common areas. They aimed for the city’s communitygardens to turn into exciting places where people from dif-ferent cultures meet and share cultivation experiences(Borg et al., 2013).At the time of the study, Stockholm had approximately

40 community gardens scattered throughout the city andits suburbs. When viewing the distribution of communitygardening initiatives in Stockholm it is noticeable that alarge number of initiatives are located in the southernand central districts. Many were present in the citycenter and in the more recently developed areas in thesouth-east and northern sides of Stockholm. These areashave a population of well-educated and environmentallyconscious citizens (SCB, 2016). Notably, fewer commu-nity gardens were present in the districts north andnorth-west of Stockholm (Fig. 1).The community gardens were usually very small in size

(10–30 m2) and had between three and ten people activelyinvolved. The number of community gardens had beenrising every year, however, some were just there for ayear and then are abandoned. The community gardenswere all newly established and the growers tend to drawpeople from the middle class who were a trend- and envir-onmentally-conscious. The community gardens consid-ered in our research were all collective and public incharacter. By ‘public,’ we mean that there was publicaccess to the gardens anytime, i.e., they were open tothe public to enter and to look around, and even to sitdown and relax in the garden. As public gardens, theyfulfilled important functions, social or otherwise, thatwere relevant for a broader group of people or for thewhole neighborhood. According to the gardeners, thecommunity gardens in Stockholm should have had a pro-ductive function, i.e., vegetables should be grown, butflowers were also planted in some cases. Almost all plant-ing was in raised beds in wooden boxes i.e., in a pallet (A.Bulukin, personal communication, December 3, 2015;and L. Näslund, personal communication, January 21,2016) (Fig. 2).According to the municipality officers, community

gardens geographically located outside the central partsof the inner city in the south and north had anotherpurpose. They were started as a way to help people to

re-commit to the construction of daily space in areaswhere there are socio-spatial conflicts, and where gentrifi-cation processes were taking place. These initiatives wereoften supported by the housing companies, for example‘Stockholmshem’, a state-owned housing company thatmainly provided community housing (see Table 1).These initiatives were launched by environmentally con-scious citizens living in this community housing, and thehousing companies themselves who wanted to introducelocal food to the area. However, our investigation showsthat the commitment from larger group of citizens wasrather low and that these projects were struggling tosurvive. Most of the more successful gardening projectsemerged due to cooperation between informal gardeninggroups and the district administration. The administra-tion supported grassroots public space planning, togetherwith traditional planning agents (e.g. administration orbuilding companies).Some gardens had collective areas only, while others

also had some beds managed by individuals. The commu-nity garden groups were organized in different ways,ranging from loose groups to formally registered associa-tions. The groups received funding from various sources.The most common sources were member fees andmember donations; however, some received donationsfrom companies or funds, e.g. through sponsored palletsor soil. Most of them received public funding as well,mostly for the physical creation of the gardens, soil,pallets and space; rarely for maintenance costs. Thegardens were all managed by the members in their sparetime and no one was employed to do so.

The municipality’s incentive for providing land

Stockholm is divided into 14 district administrations andeach is responsible for the maintenance of city parks. Itwas at this level that decisions are made about communitygardening. Community gardens in Stockholm fell underthe remit of various governing bodies within the districts.In this respect, the traffic office and the district adminis-trations planned where community gardens can belocated together. At the time of publication, Stockholmis developing a new park plan and it will hopefullydiscuss community gardening and how the city adminis-tration can meet this new interest in cultivation. Whilewaiting for a common plan, the various district adminis-trations have chosen to resolve the issue of communitygardening in different ways.When the first garden, called Trädgård på spåret (in

English: Garden on the Track), started in 2012, theylearned that the Stockholm administration’s approachtowards setting up a community garden was that itshould be a bottom-up, grassroots-inspired process, i.e.,they had to make the arrangements for the gardens them-selves (L., Näslund, personal communication, December2, 2015). This was acknowledged in our conversationswith the administrators (district administration officers




in Skärholmen,Skarpnäck, personal communication,April and May, 2014 and April 2016). Furthermore, asexplained by district administration officers inSkarpnäck, Skärholmen and Norrmalm on how many

gardens there will be, depended very much on the reactionof the Stockholmers to community gardening and thedemand they generated for more urban space to be dedi-cated towards the projects (district administration officers

Fig. 1. Map of community gardens in Stockholm. Source: own survey.

Fig. 2. Raised beds in pallets at Trädgård på spåret (Garden on the Track).




in Skarpnäck, Skärholmen and Norrmalm, personalcommunication, April and May, 2014 and April 2016).The City of Stockholm has provided support for pro-

jects, through a ‘demand driven’ approach to communitygardening, mainly in the form of leasing land to the com-munity gardening projects (personal communication withmunicipality officer at Norrmalm May 2, 2014). Withoutthis support, it is doubtful that many community garden-related projects would be in existence today due to thehigh cost of land leasing. For most of the communitygardens, the Stockholm municipality was the landownerand it appeared that the city functioned merely as thelandowner rather than acting as an actual governingbody. The majority of the community garden associationshad a so-called ‘user’s agreement’. This user’s agreementclarified the responsibilities of the involved parties (com-munity garden and municipality). This included thelength of the lease, what should be grown and who wasresponsible for the water supply. The agreement mayhave been terminated by either party if desired. Most ofthe community gardens had yearly lease agreements andthis was something that is important for the districtadministrations, because then they could be terminatedat any time for new economic development projects. Inthe beginning, every district administration had its ownway of setting up community gardens but since 2015,most of the district administrations had a list with foursteps posted on their web page for those who wanted tostart a community garden project. Below is an excerptfrom of what one of these looks like (authors’ translationfrom Swedish into English):

1. ‘Propose and plot your location on a map and contactyour district administration to receive advance noticeif the site is available for gardening.

2. Gather a few people who are interested in communitygardening and form an association.

3. Make a description of how many pallets or squaremetres you need for cultivation. Draw on a map thelocation where you wish to cultivate, and make a list

of members and contacts in the group. Describewhat you plan to plant.

4. E-mail the information to the district administrationand sign a user agreement for your communitygarden’ (Stockholm City, 2016a, b, accessed 2016)

This kind of information was not available when thefirst community garden was established. At that timethere were no formal contracts to sign and the administra-tion was unsure how to handle the requests for creatinggardens, which meant that the gardeners had to inventways to get around the bureaucracy (L., Näslund, per-sonal communication November 2, 2015, January 21,2016). The absence of guidance led to vague responsibil-ities and leadership, and unclear expectations of theoutcome of the gardens (A., Bulukin, personal communi-cation, December 3, 2015).In 2013, an official document called ‘The green walk-

able city’ (authors’ translation) (Borg et al., 2013) waspublished, as an addition to the Stockholm City Plan. Itexpressed support for various forms of UrbanAgriculture, in particular, community gardening. TheStockholm municipality’s planning strategy concludesthat community gardening is something that should beprioritized and the official stance is that the city willwork to improve the residents’ ability to influence theirenvironment by, for example, gardening in variousforms (Borg et al., 2013, p. 19).In ‘The green walkable city’ document there were a

number of strategies to manage parks and the green areasin Stockholm. One of these strategies was called ‘Engagedand involved locals’ (authors’ translation). This strategy’saim was to improve citizens’ abilities to influence theirneighborhood area and give them a chance to take part incommunity gardening. Likewise, the city mentioned thatcommunity gardening is good because it creates meetingplaces and builds safe and attractive neighborhoods,which are considered important, especially in sociallydeprived areas. According to this strategy, the city willactively support projects such as community gardens.

Table 1. Reasons why the city administrations are engaged and supporting community gardens.

Answers form the suburban district administrations Answers form the inner-city district administrations

Easy to remove if it gets bad results/pallets and raisedbeds are movable

Easy to remove if it gets bad results/ pallets and raised bedsare movable

Improves public health Provides more opportunity to growMeeting place for citizens One way to restore parksNeighborhood watch Creates commitment to the city and green areasIncreases safety in residential areas Increases the beauty of the cityA supplement in poor parks and nature areas Climate benefitsFacilitates exchanges of cultural traditions and knowledge Preserves the city’s green areas, a form of sustainable urbanizationCreates community Reduced transport of food to increase sustainabilityFacilitates integration Promotes biodiversityStimulates outdoor activities

Source: Interviews with city planners in the district administrations.




When community gardens were first being established(2012–2015), the municipality officers only acted ondirect requests from individuals or associations attempt-ing to set up community gardens; the municipalityofficers did not construct community gardens themselves.In this initial phase, the district administrations were notactively looking for interested growers; the idea needed tocome from those citizens who actually wanted to grow.The municipal officers felt that if it were a bottom-up ini-tiative, it would increase the chances of having successfullong-term community gardens as the commitment fromthe gardeners would be higher (district administrationofficers, in Skarpnäck, Skärholmen personal communica-tion, April and May, 2014). To some extent, this view haschanged, and for the 2016 growing season, one inner-cityadministration in Kungsholmen created communitygardens first and then placed ads in the local newspaperand on websites to attract growers. The project was termi-nated after one season and at the time of publication, isplanned to be evaluated to see whether the projects weresuccessful (Brandt, 2016).Most district administrations encouraged residents to

engage in community gardening. They stated that anyonewho wanted to grow could apply for permission to growon the city’s land. If the permit was granted, the districtadministration usually offered a starter kit consisting ofa pallet filled with organic soil (Stockholm City, 2017).The reasons for supporting community gardening projectswere different for the inner city and suburban city districtofficers (Table 1). Most district officers state that commu-nity gardens were easy to remove if the gardeners stoppedcoming, but the suburban district administrations’ officersalso stated that it was good for the citizens since garden-ing can improve public health. Community gardens canalso create new meeting places for citizens and gardenscan have neighborhood watch functions and increasesafety in residential areas. The inner city administrationssaw community gardens as one way to restore parks;they help to create a commitment to the city and greenareas, as well as increase the beauty of the city.According to the district administration officers, commu-nity gardens also have climate benefits and provide a moresustainable urban environment (see Table 1).Most of the district administration officers stated that

the opportunity to join a community garden associationis perfect for anyone who lives in an apartment anddoes not have an allotment but would like to grow. Thedistrict officer in Skarpnäck I Bogne stated that ‘in thisway, larger groups get the opportunity to grow on munici-pal land’ (I., Bogne, personal communication, April 24,2016).

The growers’ incentives for participating incommunity gardening

A common denominator for all respondents in the com-munity gardens was that they expressed gardening as a

strategy to contribute to sustainable development. Theysee gardening in the city as a key to reducing the distancefood travels from the field to the table and allowing formore efficient use of energy and natural resources.

‘Trädgård på spåret’

In 2012, Trädgård på spåret, a portable vegetable gardenin wooden boxes located on a railway track, was started.It was placed on an abandoned railway track area beneathSkanstull in Södermalm, Stockholm; the place became acommunity garden with four manifestations: an organicfarming school, a green market, an urban garden andan organic café (Fig. 3).The promoters of the programme were Philipp

Olsmeyer, Max Zinnecker and Lisa Kopp. The start ofTrädgård på spåret played a fundamental role in thedevelopment of the community gardening movement inStockholm, advancing a dialogue with local administra-tion by inviting traditional stakeholders (institutionalplanners, private land owners and companies) to takepart in the garden planning process.‘We thought it was a nice but poorly utilised place

where something should be done’ (P., Olsmeyer, personalcommunication, November 2, 2015). The idea of a gardencame from Prinzessinnengarten in Kreuzberg in Berlin,where, in 2009, a space was converted from a 60-year-old vacant lot into a compound-led mobile urban farmfor all, with a focus on learning. The second model wasthe High Line in Manhattan, New York, which is agreen ecological trail that connected neighborhoods (K.,Johansson, personal communication, November 2,2015). The founders had no particular gardening skillsin the beginning, which meant that everything was donethrough trial and error, resulting in a low-harvest yield.One of the programme promoters said, ‘We believe that

there is great interest and need for knowledge aboutgrowing vegetables among the people of Stockholm.’ Inthe first year about 70 people signed up for membershipsand many signed up as sponsors. Both businesses andindividuals could be sponsors by paying 1000 SwedishKronor (SEK) (approximately 100 Euros or Dollars) fora pallet with their name on it, which would be managedby the community garden members (K., Johansson, P.,Olsmeyer, personal communication, December 2, 2015).The name ‘Trädgård på spåret’ has several meanings.

First, the garden is placed on a railway track, however,it also shows that it is a mobile garden that can be relo-cated – it does not need to be in Skanstull forever. In add-ition, it means that the garden is on the ‘right track’ interms of sustainability.Even though Stockholmers regard themselves as rela-

tively environmentally conscious, one of the programmepromoter’s opinion was that Stockholm was a littlebehind other cities and thinks that it was because therewas not as much local urban initiative here as there hasbeen in Berlin, saying ‘town life here has been so good




they often expect someone else to take the initiative’ (P.,Olsmeyer, personal communication, November 2, 2015).He thought there is a longing to be able to grow in thecity. However, there had not been a lack of green areasor food in Sweden; the longing was because gardeningis fun and people could learn something. He said thatthe normal way city planning took place in Stockholmwas that an architectural competition was announced,and afterwards when it was completed, disgruntled citi-zens complain about the outcome. He believed it wasbetter if they were engaged in the plan before, or eventook the first step. The association Trädgård på spårethas been invited by the development office and city plan-ning to participate in the south city planning process thatwill transform the area where the track is located at the

time of the study (L. Näslund and P. Olsmeyer, personalcommunication, January 12, 2016).

Community garden associations‘Folkodlarna’, ‘Bagisodlarna’ and ‘Areal 127’

The association Folkodlarna in Skarpnäck (in English,authors’ translation: Growing Folks in Skarpnäck, anarea of Stockholm) had sustainable development astheir main focus when they created the association, butthey were also concerned about food deserts in the cityand the long distance food travels from the farm toplate. Their vision was to be able to grow some of theirown food with others. The association pointed out that‘it is not only about securing resources for us, but also

Fig. 3. Trädgård på spåret with a coffee shop in the foreground and pallets for cultivation further down. Source: Maria Normark2015.




about creating a just and sustainable world… We grownot only vegetables, but also a community, security anda beautiful local environment. It’s the beginning of some-thing new’ (Folkodlarna, 2016, authors’ translation fromSwedish to English).The reasons for starting the project with Bagisodlarna

(authors’ translation from Swedish to English: Bagis’farmers, Bagis is a nickname for the Bagarmossen district)can also be traced to both ecological and social sustain-ability. According to a personal communication withthe person responsible for the housing estate companythat owns the land, Stockholms Hem, the main reasonwas to develop a green space as compensation foranother that was lost (Å. Stenmark, personal communica-tion, March 28, 2017). In this case, the local housingcompany was involved. The cultivation of the areas ofHökarängen and Bredäng started because the residentswanted to devote themselves to farming as a social activ-ity in the context of reducing their carbon footprint,which also, according to them, made the cultivationboth socially and ecologically sustainable. The residentsconsidered it to be socially sustainable since it could beseen as a participatory project and a meeting place opento all. It was important that it was socially sustainable,but also that it promoted well-being (Å, Stenmark, per-sonal communication March 28, 2017).In our survey using multiple choice questions directed

towards the growers, another picture emerged. Almost allof the gardeners answered that they were engaged in a com-munity garden because it was fun (48 persons). The secondmost frequently reported reason was to promote the envir-onment and biodiversity (33 persons); then the psycho-logical and mental health aspects were also mentioned asa very important factor (29 persons). Other reasons forengagement were that they felt at ease in the garden andthat it was meditative and soothing. A common answeras to why the gardeners were engaged in community gar-dening was that they did it to meet other people, i.e., thesocial aspect was very important; more than improvingthe environment or the produce (see Table 2).

Temporality and permanence of communitygardens

The following section will interpret the results by analyz-ing the temporality and permanence of the communitygardens. The community garden initiatives in Stockholmdemonstrated varying levels of temporality. Trädgård påspåret’s community garden association was created withthe understanding that they would have to be relativelymobile, as they exist in an area where new city develop-ment is planned. The area will be built upon in the nearfuture. ‘We rent this area annually from the City ofStockholm; they do not know when, but we guess that itwill be at least three years before we have to move. Wetake it season by season’, said L, Näslund (personal com-munication, January 12, 2016). This came more quickly

than expected and in the spring of 2017 the garden wasterminated (Trädgård på spåret, 2017). Folkodlarna inSkarpnäck also ended their association in the autumn of2016 and returned the land to the municipality(Folkodlarna, 2016). More permanent activities couldsometimes be viewed as a threat, or a misuse of spaceby the municipality and other citizens, since land is expen-sive and longer leases would make it hard for the land-owner to evict community gardens if that land were tobe developed into something else, such as apartments(L. Näslund, personal communication January 12, 2016).Five years ago the local government officials saw com-

munity gardens as something that must be used by groupsand associations and other land use was viewed sceptic-ally, from the point of view that ‘we don’t want this todevelop into privatisation on public land’ (I. Bonge, per-sonal communication, April 26, 2016). But at the time ofthis study, this seemed to be changing and more and morecommunity gardens had private plots as well, althoughthe user contracts were still only 1 year long.The temporality of the garden user contracts was a

problem since growing crops takes time and one growingseason is nothing in terms of time that it takes for agarden to develop. This was also expressed by the projectmanager, Alsterhed, of the association ‘Jordliga broar’(Bridges of soil, authors’ translation from Swedish toEnglish). Alsterhed thought that the lack of understandingof how much engagement and time was required in orderto get a good community garden running was hamperingthe projects. ‘Community gardens need time to get up andrunning. At least 5–6 years is needed and short-termleases are not helping’ (C. Alsterhed, personal communica-tion, April 15, 2014). It is obvious that the level of spatialpermanence or temporality reflected the impermanentnature of community gardens in Stockholm. Consequently,shorter-term crops like leafy green vegetables were generallygrown but treeswere not, although they would sometimes bebetter suited to the urban environment.The community gardeners of the garden Areal 127 have

been subject to the issue of temporality. When the districtadministrations suddenly decided to build a public toiletat the community garden’s location, the garden had toclose during the construction period. A miscommunicationresulted in a situation where the city administration startedthe demolition of the garden before the growers had time to

Table 2. Why the gardeners are engaged in communitygardening.

Fun/enjoymentMental health aspects: e.g., meditative space, soothingTo promote the environment and biodiversityTraceability: to know the origin of the vegetablesSocially: to get together with others and make new socialcontacts

Physical health issues: working with the body

Source: Survey and interviews with gardeners.




move the pallets. The gardening had to be put on hold, butafter hard and dedicated work from the president of theAreal 127 association, the district administration restoredthe park, built new pallets and provided a water tap.Unfortunately, it was late in the growing season andmany of the members had already left the communitygarden association, and therefore the season of 2016 waswasted (A. Bulukin, social media communication, 2016).Temporality was also evident in the district of

Kungsholmen. As mentioned above, the district adminis-tration started four community gardens themselves in theseason of 2016. The project lasted for one growing seasonand the pallets were taken away. The district administra-tion evaluated the initiative during the winter 2016/2017to see if the projects were successful or not (Brandt,2016). However, according to personal communicationswith A. Bulukin (2016) and C. Alsterhed (2014), oneseason was not sufficient for evaluating a growingproject. It takes time to establish these kinds of projects.

Facilitator incentives

One shared problem in the community gardens we havebeen studying is that they relyed on one or two people tocoordinate the whole association. Often it was the founder(s) of the associations who end up with a heavy burden ontheir shoulders. They were the ones who made everythingmove forward and taking the initiative to meet. Theyoften ended up with the responsibility of watering theplants during periods of the summer when everybodyelse was away, and they were the ones who kept in contactwith the district administration and informed new mem-bers and the general public of the garden. They alsooften had to manage social media, a web page and face-book, etc. In the beginning, this was often done with enthu-siasm, but it became a heavy burden and they rarely hadany time to grow themselves. Eventually, these peoplefound they were no longer coping with all of the dutiesand they quit, meaning the fate of the garden was thenrather uncertain. Sometimes another person stepped in,but we have learned that when a garden association is leftwithout its driving force, it often ceases to exist. This is,of course, not a good way to handle the gardens if theyare supposed to be part of a sustainable city.Other cities in Sweden have worked with community

gardening in another way. In the town of Malmö (thethird largest city in Sweden), e.g., there was a facilitatorwho was a formally appointed, knowledgeable gardencoordinator that worked with the various stakeholders,including the gardeners, municipality and housing com-panies. We interviewed an employed facilitator who coor-dinated several community gardens in the city. He wasconnected to an NGO that ran on various project funds(from housing companies and the municipality, as wellas other smaller grants from other foundations and evenEU funds). The head facilitator had years of experiencein farming outside the city but he believed in the positive

effects of community gardening and its ability to trans-form communities. He was active in several different com-munity gardening initiatives and was also hired as afacilitator for community gardening projects in severalparts of the city. He made sure that the projects weremanaged properly, and employed gardeners to assist theother community gardenerswith maintenance, crop advice,tidying the gardens, etc. He guided us through the commu-nity gardens where he worked, and in an interview, heshared his experiences of being active in non-profit organi-zations and collaborating with the municipality andhousing companies to start and maintain communitygardens. He acknowledged and regretted the lack ofsupport and management from the municipalities, bothfinancial and social, to make community gardening initia-tives function on a long-term basis. He described their rolesas facilitators and upholders of community gardens as akind of employed version of enthusiasts that keeps otherfarms going. Their approach to embarking in a communitygarden as facilitators were described like this:‘We don’t do this kind of mushy-mushy fuss [for the

residents], instead we have consciously worked foremostat ‘Herrgården’ with just starting the cultivation in thebeds and then people can come voluntarily and helpand take part and adopt a bed and we call it ‘social eco-logical farming at Herrgården’’ (G. Larsson, personalcommunication, August 23, 2016).The economic costs did not have to be that large, but

there was a need to have a facilitator and that obviouslycame with some costs: ‘[The housing company] and us,we have the same common strategy too, and that istheir gain in all this, to reduce maintenance costs andhave people that take responsibility for their outdoorenvironment where they live, and this is exactly what ishappening here’ (G. Larsson, personal communication,August 23, 2016). The facilitators, therefore, saw a clearbenefit from community gardening projects as a socialproject in neighborhoods. Larsson continued by saying:‘The best way of working with this is sort of non-profit

forms of association, because there you avoid VAT (value-added tax) and then/also you can apply for a lot more (…)different kinds of project funds. Non-profit associationshave no limits in applying for project funds, but as acompany you often get rejected’ (G. Larsson, personalcommunication, August 23, 2016).As we have seen in several of the community gardens in

Stockholm, there was a need for organization and overviewby someone who was involved with continuous mainten-ance, therefore there was a need to have a facilitator tohelp the community gardens function on a long-term basis.

Discussion: Driving forces for participationin relation to the practical circumstances

The community gardens in Stockholm were all in theirinfancy and their long-term future was hard to predict,




but one finding of our study is that sustainability was hardto maintain among the growers themselves. Many cityinhabitants were from a rural society several generationsago, which means they had no prior knowledge ofgrowing and did not know what it takes to grow, storeand make use of the produce. They started off very enthu-siastically in the spring with the cultivation of seedlingsand then planting in the beginning of the summer.Summer came and since they lived in the city theywanted to spend their holiday somewhere else. Swedestypically have 5 weeks of holiday and usually all of it isspent during the summer outside of the inner city in sum-merhouses or locations abroad (L. Näslund, personalcommunication, January 12, 2016). The problem thenarises as to who will water the plants? ‘Do they needwatering every day?’ (E. Bergendahl, personal communi-cation, December 3, 2015). The fact that a raised bed inwooden boxes dries out quickly came as a surprise tomany inexperienced growers (L. Näslund, personal com-munication, January 12, 2016).The growers also started off by planting crops that are

easy to grow, like carrots and leafy vegetables, and thenit was hard to store and make use of all the vegetablesthat suddenly appear in larger quantities in the garden.The understanding of the process that inexperienced gar-deners had was that you plant and then you just harvest.No work is done in between, or afterward. Many stopcoming when they realize this (K. Johansson, personalcommunication, November 2, 2015; E. Bergendahl,December 3, 2015). All of the community gardens wevisited had issues with watering (which was aggravatedby the raised beds that dry faster than beds dug directlyinto the soil). They had watering schemes but almost allof them ended up with one or two people watering allsummer by themselves. Another issue was the access towater. During the planning process, this was somethingthat was forgotten. Easy access to water is essential fora garden, but hoses and keys to the taps were hard tocome by because they were privately owned, or locatedfar away.The next issue was who may harvest and eat the vegeta-

bles. In a community garden, everything is usually com-munal, including the produce. But if half of the groupdoes not participate in the hard work during summerbut just shows up at harvest, should they have the sameamount of produce as the rest of the group? Since thegardens often produced tomatoes and salad the questionwas, how many tomatoes could you eat if you have asmall household? This part of the gardening activitieswas rarely planned for. The driving forces were the joyof gardening and enthusiasm for a cooperative project,but our conclusion from following these projects is thatthe more goal-oriented the community garden is inregard to planning the right kind of crops and havingharvest throughout the season, the better chance the com-munity garden has of lasting or at least keeping the gar-deners active in the association.

The importance of the role of the facilitator

All of the community gardens we studied have had thesame problem: the community gardens were managed bythe association members in their free time and they reliedon one or two people who coordinated everything fromseeds to harvest. These people took care of the associationand pushed the work forward in the community garden. Inmany cases, this person was often the one whowas particu-larly driven and often the founder of the association whohad a vision that goes beyond gardening as stated above.But facilitating is a task that takes a lot of time andeffort, and when this person no longer had that time orwill to continue, the community gardens had a hard timesurviving, like Trädgård på spåret and Folkodlarna inSkarpnäck. Some of the unpaid facilitators had hardlyany time to grow anything themselves since they were con-stantly needed to explain to inexperienced growers how togrow, to water the plants and also to communicate withmunicipality officers, raise money, educate and enlightenthe wider community, local schools and kindergartens inhis or her spare time. This was, of course, not sustainablefor the facilitator or the association and communitygarden. This made the community gardens extremely vul-nerable. How can these groups be supported? Could themunicipality provide a paid facilitator instead of handingout soil and pallets? As the example from Malmö shows,a facilitator (a garden coordinator) might enhance the lon-gevity of the community gardens.This might be a typical Swedish problem because there is

a different ‘volunteering culture’ in Sweden. The generalpattern of volunteering is characterized by a focus onmembership and ‘voluntary activities’ are, to a great deal,performed within the framework of an organization(Lundström and Svedberg, 2003). We argue that since thetraditional forms of volunteering are rare we need tohave other arrangements to run the community gardens.As we have discussed regarding the most recent devel-

opment, municipalities, housing companies and otherorganizations want people to start small-scale communitygardens in their neighborhoods. The conclusion we candraw from these initiatives that we have studied is thatbottom-up and top-down initiatives need to have a forma-lized role for a person responsible for facilitating andcoordinating resources, planning, knowledge, etc. Theseprojects are most likely to fail when there is no organiza-tion surrounding the community gardens. If this is to be aserious practice that lasts longer than one or two seasons,there must be some organization behind it. Simply provid-ing citizens some bags of soil and some seeds result in slimchances of long-term success.

Conclusions and future possibilities

It has been argued that community gardening holdspromise for sustainable lifestyles with its association




towards ecology, food awareness and social sustainability(Milbourne, 2012). The main findings of this paper arethat the district administration officers in Stockholm do,to some extent, share this view, but the cases fromStockholm do not support this argument. The projectsthat we have studied show that the community gardensare only marginally sustainable regarding food produc-tion or in their own survival. To make them more sustain-able, community garden associations require knowledge,resources and clear goals to have the potential tobecome a more long-term phenomenon in the urban land-scape. The current discourse in Stockholm regarding com-munity gardening is that it is good for the city to be greenand that community gardening is a strategy to deliver thevision of the sustainable city. We argue that there is a needto move beyond this discourse. The municipality officershave fallen for a societal narrative on community garden-ing that is both uncritically positive as well as decontex-tualized, as ‘food, city planning, and public health mustbe discussed in tandem‘(McClintock, 2014). The commu-nity gardening development in Stockholm is, as we havedescribed, hampered by vague responsibilities and leader-ship, and unclear expectations of the outcome. The casesin Stockholm exemplify how formal and informal advo-cacy groups are collaborating, but that they often have dif-ferent agendas and motivations for setting up newcommunity gardens. The gardeners want to have a nicespot to socialize at and ‘get their hands dirty’, and ifthey get some produce that is a bonus. The municipalityofficers want it to be a part of the greening of the cityand as a part of the city’s plan to be one of the greenestand most sustainable cities in the world. They also see itas a part of social sustainability, believing that it wouldcreate community and act as a form of neighborhoodwatch. They also believe that it would increase safety inresidential areas, and facilitate exchanges about culturaltraditions and knowledge, and therefore facilitate integra-tion. We see that the larger society (the municipality ofStockholm and the district administrations) have begunto embrace the concept of community gardening, andhas therefore responded to citizens’ requests for landand been willing to let it be part of the city landscape,but they are not really sure how best to execute and facili-tate the gardens. The founders of the different gardenassociations we have met see social and ecological sustain-ability as a fundamental feature of their approach to com-munity gardening in Stockholm even if they do not reallyproduce much food. They also see the community gardensas a meeting place and an important place for social inter-action and socializing with friends. We can see that com-munity gardening in Stockholm is still in its infancy.However, to be able to grow and fulfill the dreams andvisions of the community gardeners and city plannerswe argue that we can see an uncritical enthusiasm thatresults in an overly ad hoc approach to governance ofcommunity gardens and that the long-term viability ofthe community gardens is forgotten. One way of ensuring

that this ad hoc short-term viability does not happen is byemploying facilitators. We argued that if the communitygarden associations had someone to facilitate thegroups, a person who could handle contacts with themunicipality, inform new members, keep in contact withother associations and raise money, etc., it would givethe group a stability that is hard to get if all the responsi-bility rests on a few enthusiasts. It is necessary, we argue,that funds and long-term engagement are tied to thesekinds of initiatives. Relying on enthusiasm for gardeningas the driving force for developing community gardensmore permanently within municipalities is not, as wehave tried to show in this paper, a lasting way of investingin urban green areas.For some of the community gardeners, the vision for

the future is that community gardening might evolveinto a more widespread phenomenon than it is today.They hope that community gardening will be part of theinfrastructure when new areas are planned. However, weargue that in its current form, it cannot be a viable wayto ensure a food supply for the city. This is because:

. lackof knowledge is currently a challenge: growing vege-tables, especially on a larger scale requires a substantialamount of know-how and experience on how to sow,harvest, store and use the produce to be successful

. the crops demands continuous attention: participatingin a community garden not close to home requires com-mitment, maintain a watering scheme in the summer isa typical challenge, the commitments from the garden-ers fluctuate during the season

. it is almost a negligible amount of vegetables that isproduced in these small wooden boxes that are typicallyused

Currently, community gardening in Stockholm doesnot show real promise to contribute in any substantialway to an urban sustainable food system. There are,however, a few possibilities that may change this in a posi-tive direction:

. municipalities and housing companies should alsofocus on knowledge support, as well as providingsome physical prerequisites for growing (access towater, etc.)

. the gardens should be allowed to grow and becomelarger: the raisedwooden boxes are convenient for quickand easy construction of the garden, but provide limi-tations, both in space and that they require morewatering

. the land lease should be long-term: the yearly contractsthe municipality offers restrains the stability of thegardens

. there is a need for investigating the organizations of thecommunity gardens further: in the Swedish context,relying solely on a voluntary commitment by the gar-deners is a challenge. Finding alternative organizationforms, e.g., by hiring coaches, providing internships




for students and long-term farming volunteers mayprovide further stability to the gardens.

Acknowledgment. We would like to thank the anonymous refer-ees for their useful suggestion’s and the Editors of this specialissue. This research was supported by Östersjöstiftelsen (TheFoundation for Baltic and East European Studies, Sweden).

References

Beck, F.D. 2001. Introduction to the special section, struggles inbuilding community. Sociological Inquiry 71(4); 455–458.

Björklund, A. 2010. Historical urban agriculture: food produc-tion and access to land in Swedish towns before 1900,Doctoral dissertation. Acta Universitatis StockholmiensisStockholm studies in human geography NO 20, Stockholm.

Block, T., Steyvers, S., Oosterlynck, S., Reynaert, H., and DeRynck, F. 2012. When strategic plans fail to lead. A complex-ity-acknowledging perspective on decision-making in urbanprojects. The case of Kortrijk. European Planning Studies20:981–997.

Block, T., Van Assche, J., and Goeminne, G. 2013. Unravellingurban sustainability. The Flemish City Monitor acknowl-edges complexity. In Ecological informatics, special issue on‘Unravelling Complexity and Supporting sustainability’, pp.104–110.

Borg, K.E., Hammarberg, U., Elfström, B., and Sabel, M. 2013.Den gröna promenadstaden: (The green walkable city) Enstrategi för utveckling av Stockholms parker och natur.Stockholms stad, Stadsbyggnadskontoret.

Brandt, P. 2016. Här kommer vem som hels att få odla (Online).Available at http://www.stockholmdirekt.se/nyheter/har-kommer-vem-som-helst-att-fa-odla-fyra-nya-platser-pa-kung-sholmen/aRKpdl!mvf8rPbJbjqEIQsuN9p1DA/ Published 13April 2016 (Accessed 7 May 2016).

Brenner, N. and Theodore, N. 2002. Cities and the geographies of‘actually existing neoliberalism’. Antipode 34(3):349–379.

Brodhag, C. 1999. From rationality to governance: the decisionprocess of sustainable development. International Journal ofSustainable Development 2(3):388–396.

Bulkeley, H. and Castán Broto, V. 2013. Government by experi-ment? Global cities and the governing of climate change.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38(3),361–375.

Certomá, C. and Notteboom, B. 2017. Informal planning in atransactive governmentality. Re-reading planning practicesthrough Ghent’s community gardens. Planning Theory 16(1):51–73.

Coldinga, J. and Barthel, S. 2013. The potential of ‘UrbanGreenCommons’ in the resilience building of cities. EcologicalEconomics 86:156–166.

Crouch, D. and Ward, C. 1997. The Allotment: Its Landscapeand Culture. Nottingham: Five Leaves.

Evans, N., Morris, C., and Winter, M. 2002. Conceptualizingagriculture: a critique of post-productivism as the new ortho-doxy. Progress in Human Geography 26(3):313–332.

FAO 2007. Urban agriculture for sustainable poverty alleviationand food security (online). Available at http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/FCIT/PDF/UPA-WBpaper-Final October2008.pdf (Accessed 10 October 2015).

Ferris, J., Norman, C., and Sempik, J. 2001. People, land and sus-tainability: community gardens and the social dimension ofsustainable development. Social Policy and Administration35(5):559–568.

Firth, C., Maye, D., and Pearson, D. 2011. Developing “com-munity” in community gardens. Local Environment 16(6):555–568.

Folkodlarna 2016. Folkodlarna (online). Available at http://www.folkodlarna.se/facebook.com/folkodlarna (Accessed 10March 2016).

Glover, T.D. 2003. Community garden movement. In K.Christensen and D. Levinson (eds). Encyclopedia ofCommunity: From the Village to the Virtua World, vol. 1.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. pp. 264–266.

Hajer, M.A. and Wagenaar, H. 2003. Introduction. InHajer, M.A. and Wagenaar, H. (eds). Deliberative PolicyAnalysis: Understanding Governance in the NetworkSociety. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp.1–30.

Halloran, A. andMagid, J. 2013. The role of local government inpromoting sustainable urban agriculture in Dar es Salaamand Copenhagen. Geografisk Tidsskrift Danish Journal ofGeography 113(2):121–132.

Harvey, D. 1989. Frommanagerialism to entrepreneurialism: thetransformation of urban governance in late capitalism.Geografiska Annaler: Series B 71(1):3–17.

Hou, J. 2010. Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism andthe Remaking of Contemporary Cities. New York: Taylorand Francis.

Jessop, B. 2002. Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban govern-ance: a state-theoretical perspective. In N. Brenner andTheodore, N. (eds). Spaces of Neoliberalism: UrbanRestructuring in Western Europe and North America.Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 105–125.

Knigge, L. 2009. Intersections between public and private: com-munity gardens, community service and geographies of carein the US City of Buffalo, NY. Geographica Helvetica, 64(1):55–52.

Larsson, M. 2009. Stadsdelsträdgård - plats för gemenskapoch kreativa processer. PhD Dissertation. Alnarp: ActaUniversitatis agriculturae Sueciae.

Lefebvre, H. 2014. Dissolving city, planetary metamorphosis’.Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32(2):203–205.

Lovell, S.T. 2010.Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainableland use planning in the United States. Sustainability 2(8):2499–2522.

Lundström, T. and Svedberg, L. 2003. The voluntary sector in asocial democratic welfare state – the case of Sweden. Journalof Social Policy 32(2):217–238.

McClintock, N. 2014. Radical, reformist, and garden-varietyneoliberal: coming to terms with urban agriculture’s contra-dictions. Local Environment 19(2):147–171.

McCormick, K., Anderberg, S., Coenen, L., and Neij, L. 2013.Advancing sustainable urban transformation. Journal ofCleaner Production 50:1–11.

McKay, G. 2011. Radical Gardening: Politics, Idealism &Rebellion in the Garden. London: Frances Lincoln Limited.

Mendes, W., Balmer, K., Kaethler, T., and Rhoads, A. 2008.Using land inventories to plan for urban agriculture: experi-ences from Portland and Vancouver. Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association 74(4):435–449.



http://www.stockholmdirekt.se/nyheter/har-kommer-vem-som-helst-att-fa-odla-fyra-nya-platser-pa-kungsholmen/aRKpdl!mvf8rPbJbjqEIQsuN9p1DA/




http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/FCIT/PDF/UPA-WBpaper-Final October 2008.pdf




http://www.folkodlarna.se/facebook.com/folkodlarna




Milbourne, P. 2012. Everyday (in)justices and ordinary environ-mentalisms: community gardening in disadvantaged urbanneighbourhoods. Local Environment 17(9):943–957.

Miller, J. 2005. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction ofexperience. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(8):261–268.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., and Lampel, J. 1998. StrategySafari. A Guided Tour Through the Wilds of StrategicManagement. New York: Free Press.

Mougeot, L.J.A. 2006. Growing Better Cities: UrbanAgriculture for Sustainable Development. Ottawa, Canada:International Development Research Center.

Nilsson, E.M. and Wiman, V. 2015. Gardening communities asurban archives and social resource in urban planning. In B.Westerlund, M. Tham, H. Edeholt, M. Ávila, L. Diedrich,J. Rosenquist, A. Holmquist, S. Maittinen, D. Stuedahl, P.Ullmark, K. Lindström, and Å Ståhl (eds). Nordes DesignEcologies : Challenging Anthropocentrism in the Design ofSustainable Futures. Stockholm, Sweden: Konstfack –University College of Arts, Crafts and Design, pp. 1–4.

Prové, C., Joost, D., and de Kroma,M. 2016. Taking context intoaccount in urban agriculture governance: case studies ofWarsaw (Poland) and Ghent (Belgium). Land Use Policy56:16–26.

Purcell, M. 2002. Excavating Lefebvre: the right to the cityand its urban politics of the inhabitant. GeoJournal 58(2–3), 99–108.

Purcell, M. and Tyman, S.K. 2014. Cultivating food as a right tothe city. Local Environment 20(10):1132–1147.

Reynolds, R. 2008. On Guerilla Gardening: A Handbook forGardening Without Boundaries. London: Bloomsbury.

Rosol, M. 2010. Public participation in post-Fordist urban greenspace governance: The case of community gardens in Berlin.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34(3):548–563.

Rosol, M. 2012. Community volunteering as neoliberal strategy?Green space production in Berlin. Antipode 44(1):239–257.

SCB 2016. Statistics of population in Stockholm (online).Available at http://www.scb.se/sv_/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/befolkning/befolkningens-sammansattning/befol-kningsstatistik/ (Accessed 6 September 2016.

Schmelzkopf, K. 1995. Urban community gardens as a contestedspace. Geographical Review 85(3):364–381.

Seitz, J. 2011. Urban gardens: catalysts for restorative com-mons infrastructure. In L. Campbell and A. Wiesen (eds).Restorative Commons: Creating Health and Well-Being

Through Urban Landscapes. US: Agriculture Dept, pp. 96–109.

Seyfang, G. and Smith, A. 2007. Grassroots innovations for sus-tainable development: towards a new research and policyagenda. Journal Environmental Politics 16(4):584–603.

Stockholm City 2016a. Statistik och fakta (Online). Available athttp://www.stockholm.se/OmStockholm/Fakta-och-kartor/(Accessed 21 May 2017).

Stockholm City 2016b. Brukaravtal -för dig som vill sköta ettområde i din egen närmiljö. (Online). Available at Websitewww.stockholm.se/Fristaende-webbplatser/Stadsdelssajter/Ostermalm/Tillsammans/Odlingslador-2015-i-Tessin--och-OP-parken/Brukaravatal---for-dig-som-vill-skota-ett-omrade-i-din-egen-narmiljo/. (Accessed 3 October 2016).

Stockholm City 2017. Intresserad av stadsodling (Online).Available at Website www.stockholm.se/-/Nyheter/Park-natur-och-friluftsliv/Nm_Vill-du-stadsodla-i-Roda-bergen/(Accessed 10 May 2017).

Teisman, G.R. 2000.. Models for research into decision-makingprocesses: on phases, streams and decision-making rounds.Public Administration 78(4):937–956.

Tornaghi, C. 2012. Public space, urban agriculture and the grass-roots creation of new commons: lessons and challenges forpolicy makers. In A.M. Viljoen, J.S.C. Wiskerke (eds).Sustainable Food Planning. Wageningen: WageningenAcademic Publisher, pp. 349–364.

Tornaghi, C. 2014. Critical geography of urban agriculture.Progress in Human Geography 38(4):551–567.

Tracey, D. 2007. Guerrilla Gardening: A Manualfesto. GabriolaIsland (BC): New Society Publishers.

Trädgård på spåret 2017. (Online). Available at Website www.facebook.com/TRADGARDPASPARET/ (Accessed 4April 2017).

United Nations 2016. (Online). Available at www.un.org/sustai-nabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (Accessed23 May 2017).

Voicu, I. and Been, V. 2008. The effect of community gardens onneighboring property values. Real Estate Economics 36(2):241–283.

Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., andSkinner, A. 2007. Growing urban health: community garden-ing in South-east Toronto. Health Promotion International22(2):92–101.

Whitehead, M. 2013. Neoliberal urban environmentalism andthe adaptive city. Urban Studies 50(7):1348–1367.



http://www.scb.se/sv_/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/befolkning/befolkningens-sammansattning/befolkningsstatistik/




http://www.stockholm.se/OmStockholm/Fakta-och-kartor/

http://www.stockholm.se/OmStockholm/Fakta-och-kartor/

http://www.stockholm.se/Fristaende-webbplatser/Stadsdelssajter/Ostermalm/Tillsammans/Odlingslador-2015-i-Tessin--och-OP-parken/Brukaravatal---for-dig-som-vill-skota-ett-omrade-i-din-egen-narmiljo/




http://www.stockholm.se/-/Nyheter/Park-natur-och-friluftsliv/Nm_Vill-du-stadsodla-i-Roda-bergen/

http://www.stockholm.se/-/Nyheter/Park-natur-och-friluftsliv/Nm_Vill-du-stadsodla-i-Roda-bergen/

http://www.facebook.com/TRADGARDPASPARET/

http://www.facebook.com/TRADGARDPASPARET/

http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/


Documents

Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems: 33(6); 503 ...€¦ · Urban Agriculture are highly context-dependent and that every city must have its own way of setting up Urban Agriculture