Table of Contents. Chapter 1 – Introduction. 1.0 …...Table of Contents. Chapter 1 – Introduction. 1.0 Dissertation Title p8 1.1 Research Question. p8 1.2 Research Objectives

Table of Contents.

Chapter 1 – Introduction.

1.0 Dissertation Title p8

1.1 Research Question. p8

1.2 Research Objectives. p8

1.3 Research Scope. p9

Chapter 2 - Literature Review.

2.0 Introduction to Literature Review. p10

2.1 The Definition of Community Gardening. p11

2.2 The Need for Community Gardening. p12

2.3 Considerations for Community Gardening Success. p14

2.4 Community Gardening as a Sustainable Development Indicator. p15

2.5 The Argument for Increased Quality of Life through Community

Gardening. p18

2.6 The Provisions for Community Gardening through International

Agreements, and Government Legislation. p25

2.7 Community Gardening as part of Dublin’s County, and Local

Area Planning. p28

2.8 A Recent History of Community Gardening in Dublin. p32

Chapter 3 – Methodology.

3.0 Introduction p44

3.1 Literature Review. p44

3.2 Survey of Public Attitudes. p46

3.3 Semi-Structured Interviews. p47

- 1

Chapter 4 – Results.

4.0 Introduction. p49


4.2 Semi Structured Interviews. p54

4.2.1 Community Gardening Participant Interviews. p58

4.2.2 Local Authority Interviews. p85

Chapter 5 – Discussion.

5.0 Introduction. p109


5.1.1 Survey Approach. p110

5.1.2 Survey Analysis. p113

5.1.2.1 Survey Analysis Demographics. p113

5.1.2.2 Survey Analysis on “Quality of Life”. p116

5.1.2.3 Survey Analysis on the contribution of

community gardening towards “Quality of Life”. p117

5.1.2.4 Further Survey Analysis. p119

5.1.2.5 Analysis of Survey Issues. p123

5.2 Interviews. p125

5.2.1 Semi Structured Interview Approach. p125

5.2.2 Semi Structured Interview Analysis. p129

5.3 Findings. p129

5.3.1 Attitudes. p129

- 2

5.3.1.1 The Economic value of Community

Gardening. p129

5.3.1.2 Education. p131

5.3.1.3 Community Development. p134

5.3.1.4 Opposition to Community Gardening. p136

5.3.1.5 Quality of Life. p139

5.3.2 Policy and Practice. p144

5.3.2.1 Community gardening. p144

5.3.2.1.1 Introduction. p144

5.3.2.1.2 Dublin City Council. p144

5.3.2.1.3 South Dublin County Council. p145

5.3.2.1.4 Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County

Council. p146

5.3.2.1.5 Fingal County Council. p146

5.3.2.1.6 Conclusion. p149

5.3.2.2 Planning. p150





Council. p153



5.3.2.3 Resource Management. p155



- 3



Council. p157



5.3.2.4 Agenda 21. p164





Council. p166



5.3.3 Wider Issues. p169

5.3.3.1 Issues that encourage or prevent participation

in Community Gardening. p169

5.3.3.2 Issues that contribute to success or failure. p171

5.3.4 Recommendations. p175

5.3.4.1 Resource Management. p175

5.3.4.2 Land Management. p179

Chapter 6 – Conclusion.

6.0 Conclusion. p182

Chapter 7 – References.

7.0 References. p185

- 4

Appendices.

Appendix 1: The full list and sequence of questions used within the Public Survey Questionnaire. p193

Appendix 2: Participant comments on questions within the survey p200

Appendix 3: The full list and sequence of questions used within semi structured Interviews. p204

Appendix 4: Transcript theme sheet for the interview with Seoidin O’Sullivan, Bill Fine, and Dorothy Fine, by Robert Moss re: Community gardening in Dublin. 30th July 2009. p208

Appendix 5: Transcript theme sheet for the interview with Eileen Kenny, and Christy Byrne, of Greenhills Community Garden on 4th August 2009. p217

Appendix 6: Transcript theme sheet for the interview with Lara Hill, of Finglas Community Garden, on Thursday 20th August 2009. p227

Appendix 7: Transcript theme sheet for the interview with Kaethe Burt O’Dea of Sitric Road Community Composting, on the 31st August 2009. p235

Appendix 8: Transcript theme sheet for the interview with Anne Traynor of Shanganagh Community Development Project, on the 9thSeptember 2009. p244

Appendix 9: Transcript theme sheet for the interview with Willie Morrogh of Dublin City Council Community Development Section, on the 27 th July 2009. p255

Appendix 10: Transcript theme sheet for the interview with Madeleine Ebbs of Dublin City Council Housing and Residential Services Department, Kay Malone and Brenda Kennedy of Domville Court, and David Glanville and Noel Callan of Millwood Court, on the 6th August 2009. p262

Appendix 11: Transcript theme sheet for the interview with Noel McEvoy and Ciara Dowling of Dublin City Parks Department, on the 7 th September 2009. p270

Appendix 12: Transcript theme sheet for the interview with Michael Hannon; Parks and Landscape Services Department,Annie Meagher; Parks and Landscape Services Department,

- 5

Bill Kearney; Parks and Landscape Services Department,Tracy McGibbon; Planning Department,and Niamh Carton; Community Services Department,of South Dublin County Council, on the 21st September 2009. p280

Appendix 13: Transcript theme sheet for the interview with Gerry Clabby of Fingal County Council Planning Department, on the 11 th September 2009. p289

Appendix 14: Transcript theme sheet for the interview with Dave Lawless of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council Economic Development and Community Department, on the 29 th September 2009. p302

List of Publications: p208

- 6

Table of Plates, Figures, and Tables.

Plate 1: Vaubahn, Freiberg, Germany. p15Plate 2: Phibsborough Royal Canal Community Garden, February 2006. p35Plate 3: The site of the Phibsborough Royal Canal Community Garden,

February 2009. p35Plate 4: De Courcey Square. 5th April 2009. p38Plate 5: De Courcey Square. 2nd August 2009. p38Plate 6: The Original Shanganah Community garden in 2004. p40Plate 7: Shanganagh Community garden in September 2009. p40Plate 8: The Phibsborough Community Garden. p113Plate 9: Communal gardening seen within the high density residential development of

Reiselfeld, Freiberg, Germany. p150

Figure 1: The potential contributions of community garden projects towards

“Quality of Life”. p22

Figure 2: A map of Dublin indicating the positions of current and recent community

garden projects. p42

Figure 3: The statistical analysis of the results of Part 1 of the Survey. p51Figure 4: The statistical analysis of the results of Part 2 of the Survey. p52

Figure 5: The statistical analysis of the demographics of those that participated in the survey. p53

Figure 6: The age demographic of the people surveyed. p114Figure 7: The age demographic of the Phibsborough/Mountjoy district. p115Figure 8: The application of Question 8, from Part 1 of the survey, to the response

categories of Question 9 from Part 1 of the survey. p120Figure 9: The application of Question 5, from Part 2 of the survey, to the response

categories of Question 4, from Part 2 of the survey. p122

Table 1: The list of semi structured interview sub themes. p55

- 7

Chapter 1 – Introduction.

1.0 Dissertation Title.

The opportunities and constraints on community gardening, as a catalyst for urban

quality of life, in Dublin.

1.1 Research Question.

This dissertation investigates the perceived contribution of community gardening

toward urban quality of life, within Dublin. It attempts to investigate issues that act to

encourage or impede the activity of community gardening, and the implications of these

issues for increased community gardening.

1.2 Research Objectives.

1.2.1 Attitudes

This study examines the attitudes towards community gardening that exist amongst the

public, local authorities, and participants who are involved in the activity, or authorise

the activity of community gardening.

1.2.2 Policy and Practice.

The positive, negative, or ambivalent oversight directed towards community gardening,

and any variance between practice and policy.

- 8

1.2.3 Wider Issues.

Beyond the scope of Policy and Practice; the factors that impact on community

gardening in Dublin. These are factors such as demographic, political, cultural, and

geographic considerations. Here the contradictions and synergies within and between

the sectors of urban society will be discussed.

1.2.4 Recommendations

The recommendations’ for increasing community gardening, as an urban activity, while

improving its positive effect upon urban quality of life.

1.3 Research Scope.

While restricted to the city of Dublin the study will encompass attitudes across all 4

county councils across the Greater Dublin Area, and multiple community gardens

within the city. A specific community gardening project in north central Dublin will be

used as a case study for surveying public attitudes to community gardening.

- 9

Chapter 2 - Literature Review.

2.0 Introduction to Literature Review.

Looking at urban gardening in a global context the “Report of the World Commission

on Environment and Development: Our Common Future” called for urban food growing

as a necessity for sustainable urban development, back in 1987. The primary reason, but

not the only reason, was to provide food for the urban poor. However the multiple

benefits of urban food growing were recognised, “Urban agriculture can also provide

fresher and cheaper produce, more green space, the clearing of garbage dumps, and

recycling of household waste.” (WCED, 1987, p254).

Since 1987 there has been a wide body of literature studying the benefits of

urban food growing by initiatives such as community gardening. Such works indicate

the multifaceted benefit to be gained by society, through the introduction of initiatives

like community gardening. In Ireland community gardening is now beginning to be

recognised for the contribution towards residents’ quality of life that it can bring, rather

than the more traditional role of urban growing for the provision of food. The recent

preoccupation with development has to some extent overshadowed community garden

opportunities within urban Dublin, but as we shall see within the dissertation, this

development is acting to increase the need and demand for community gardening

projects in the future. This is being officially recognised at local and national

government level, and in 2008 the “Sustainable Residential Development in Urban

Areas-Guidelines for Planning Authorities” document was published by the Department

of the Environment. It contains a requirement for community gardening to be a

consideration in new developments. (DEHLG, 2008, p26).

- 10

2.1 The Definition of Community Gardening.

Community gardens are a different entity to allotments. That being said there is a degree

of overlap between the operations of both amenities. The fact that allotment and

community gardening activities are often combined at the same site adds to the blurring

of boundaries. It is also the case that the organisation and traditions of each community

garden are strongly shaped by their specific participants. As a result there are many

different definitions of what is community gardening from amongst practitioners of

community gardening itself. There is variety not only in definition, but also in the

perspective of this definition. Definitions can be based on project implementation,

gardening styles, inclusivity, sharing of resources, location, and duration of gardening

activities. It is perhaps best to use a couple of complementary definitions to provide a

picture as to the traits that make a community garden unique, if not entirely separate

from allotment holdings.

“Allotments tend to be more individually oriented, yet centrally controlled, while

community gardens feature more common amenities and are more likely to be

controlled by a non-profit society.”

(Hall, 1996, p1).

“No two community gardens are alike, as there are many unique factors that affect

them, though all build upon the following: They are made by and for members of

the local community; they are sustainable, in that they manage their own resources

and maintenance; and they are inclusive, the young can use the area for play or

learning, the old for relaxing, and so on.

(Mays, 2003).

- 11

2.2 The Need for Community Gardening.

The public perception of urban places is often fearful, full of criminal activity. (Hall,

1996, p21). Despite having high population densities, cities often present an alienating

environment to their residents and visitors alike. As Michael Donnelly, of Dublin City

Council, has pointed out, “Cities are very fragmented, and places of much competition”

(Donnelly, 2009). Regardless of this cities all over the World exert an attraction upon

populations, offering enhanced job, training and cultural opportunities, both real and

imagined. Although urbanisation causes a growth in population, in the short to medium

term, it has also been accompanied by a marked drop in fertility within the developed

World. Furthermore urbanised western societies show a decrease in childlessness in

conjunction with a decline in fertility rates. Moving onwards into the future, this will

leave families with fewer siblings, and relations. Together with the lack of community

that can be experienced in an urban environment, future generations of city dwellers are

likely to face increasing social atomisation. (Eberstadt, 1997, p394). The literature on

community gardening expands in detail on how community gardening provides both

community interaction, and community identity. Holland recognised this as the primary

consistent contribution of community gardening in a study into the diversity of

community gardens in the UK, stating that “this sense of community participation and

empowerment is what links examples of community gardening”. (Holland, 2004, p285).

This is possible because of its inclusivity. Hall points out that “gardening is one of the

few activities that people from all walks of life engage in” (Hall, 1996, p30). The EPA

Strive 17 report explores quality of life issues in Galway City, and through the use of

focus groups was able to identify that both a sense of community, and identity, were

important quality of life themes for people living within this city. (Fahy, 2008, p13).

- 12

The “Regional Planning Guidelines Greater Dublin Area 2004-2016” apply to all

four Dublin County Council Local Authorities. They provide an overall strategic

context for the Development Plans of each local authority in the Greater Dublin Area.

The guidelines propose a development strategy where:

“Development within the Metropolitan Area will be consolidated, allowing for the

accommodation of a greater population than at present. In time, this will lead to a

more compact urban form, relative to the size of the population.”

(Dublin Regional Authority and Mid-East Regional Authority, 2004, p125)

The integration of transport planning and land use planning is important in providing

shorter journeys, and less motorised traffic. A major mechanism for achieving

sustainable urban development, and reduced car dependency, is to consolidate growth in

built up areas. This reduces the high requirement for private car transport that is

associated with urban sprawl. However, “If we accept this argument, that sustainability

requires cities to become more urban, then they also need to become more pleasant”

(Roseland, 1992, p201). This is because as urban density increases, then the room for

our own personnel space and amenities, such as gardens, decreases. Consequently there

is a need for public spaces to provide some of the amenities that we currently enjoy in

our private homes and gardens. The urban lifestyle of those without gardens can be

enriched by community gardening, and an increasing urban population density will

require greater numbers of people to forego the luxury of a private urban garden of their

own.

- 13

2.3 Considerations for Community Gardening Success.

An obvious requirement for the inclusivity of community gardens is that they be sited

within the midst of communities for the greater convenience of all potential users. As

well as reducing vandalism, by providing user surveillance, this also makes gardening

more enjoyable and spontaneous. (Hall, 1996, p13). The greater visibility to residents,

of community gardens which are in closer proximity to them, is also likely to lead to

greater participation. This said there are also issues to be dealt with such as aesthetic

concerns when locating community gardens closer to residences. In Canada the National

Capital Commission, which develops recreational facilities within Canada, has

suggested making the usual rectangular structure of allotment plots more attractive, and

park like, by giving them flowing shapes which can accommodate curving pathways.

(Hall, 1996, p13). In Germany the residential development of Vaubahn, in Freiberg,

makes extensive use of semi natural features in communal green areas, and play areas.

The use of branches and other waste natural vegetation for fencing, and landscaping,

can be aesthetically pleasing, and indicates that community gardens can add to the

attractiveness of an area if managed and designed thoughtfully.

- 14

Plate 1: A communal green space within a high density residential development,

making use of natural materials and forms. Vaubahn, Freiberg, Germany. (Source:

Robert Moss)

2.4 Community Gardening as a Sustainable Development Indicator.

There is an ongoing argument as to what defines sustainable development, with some

arguing that development itself is not sustainable. This is largely beyond the scope of

this research, but it is necessary to describe how sustainable development is linked to

environmental and social considerations.

The debate as to what sustainable development is has been largely framed by the

Bruntland Report of 1987, and the subsequent United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development (UNCED), of 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. Both called for an

integration of economic, ecological and social considerations, when planning and

implementing development. With sustainable development the health of the

- 15

environment is the bottom line as this under pins such development. Consequently in

order to be sustainable, economic development should view the environment and its

resources as natural capital that sustains human activity. (Baker, 2006, p21).

The UNCED Rio Conference of 1992 produced Agenda 21, and chapter 40 of Agenda

21 contains a call to create sustainable development indicators as “Indicators of

sustainable development need to be developed to provide solid bases for decision-

making at all levels”. (UN, 1993, para. 40.4). The use of such sustainable development

indicators allows for the monitoring of progress towards or away from sustainable

development. They can consequently be used to direct policy, and as such form the

basis to operationalise sustainability and sustainable development.

“Because they provide information, indicators can ‘inspire action’ and lead to

better decision-making. They can also be viewed as

educational tools that can be used to raise awareness. Hence, they can be seen as a

tool to empower both citizens and decision-makers.”

(Fahy, 2008, p8)

The Comhar publication, “Counting What Counts”, investigates the state of sustainable

development indicators for Ireland. It states that “while there appears to be a large

number of indicators available, the extent to which they address trends in sustainable

development is questionable.” (Maguire & Curry, 2007, p14) This document also points

out that “There are few regional indicators published in Ireland relating to sustainable

development, those that are mainly address economic performance, employment, waste

and water”. (Maguire & Curry, 2007, p9) At present in Ireland, it would seem that

contemporary sustainable development indicators do not represent the benefits of

community gardening, or their success in delivering these benefits. Even at the EU level

- 16

there are few sustainable development indicators that correlate with community

gardening. The European Environment Agency Core Set of Indicators which do relate

to community gardening appear to include only;

Area under organic farming (CSI 026)

Municipal waste generation (CSI 016)

(Source: Maguire & Curry, 2007, p13)

According to Eurostat these two indicators are available for Ireland. (Maguire & Curry,

2007, p17). They relate to community gardening because most community gardens have

a strong organic growing ethos. Consequently community gardens make use of compost

derived from unwanted organic matter, in preference to synthetic fertiliser. This in turn

facilitates the green recycling of organic waste that would otherwise go into the

municipal waste stream.

It is likely to be because the concept of community gardening is still relatively

new, having only recently acquired a higher profile, that it does not itself feature as an

indicator of sustainable development. It may also be the case that community gardening

is perceived as a niche contributor to both sustainable development and quality of life,

and so consequently it has not been directly addressed by either national or EU

sustainable development indicators. According to the recommendations of the Comhar

document “Counting What Counts”, a hierarchical approach to identifying sustainable

development indicators in Ireland, should be taken. This would be composed of Core

(level 1), Theme (level 2), and finally Policy Indicators (level 3). (Maguire & Curry,

2007, p26). It would seem community gardening would be a candidate for being a level

3 status indicator, because of its inclusion within publications detailing government

- 17

strategy, such as the “Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas-Guidelines

for Planning Authorities” document (DEHLG, 2008).

2.5 The Argument for Increased Quality of Life through Community Gardening.

Like the term “Sustainable Development”, “Quality of Life” is a concept that has no

exact definition. Owing to the qualitative nature of its constituent parts, “Quality of

Life” is defined in different ways by different people. Also because of the qualitative

nature of many quality of life indicators, there are difficulties in integrating them

alongside more quantitative sustainable development indicators. The qualitative nature,

of quality of life indicators, is touched upon in a useful definition of “Quality of Life”

by Cutter:

“An individual’s happiness or satisfaction with life and environment, including

needs and desires and other tangible and intangible factors which determine

overall well being”.

(Cutter, 1985)

It is likely to be because of this difficulty in using “Quality of Life” within sustainable

development indicators, that “research on quality of life indicators has not been

comprehensively developed in Ireland”. (Fahy, 2008, p9). However, quality of life is

increasingly perceived as being essential to sustainable development. This is because

acceptance of sustainability is dependent upon people and their social requirements. If

sustainable development does not provide for these requirements, by contributing to the

quality of peoples lives, then it will not be accepted by the majority of the population.

- 18

(Fahy, 2008, vii). There is some appreciation of this within “Sustainable Development,

A Strategy for Ireland”, where it is stated that:

“Effective environmental policies require the active participation of society, so

that lifestyle changes compatible with sustainable living can become established.”

(DEHLG, 1997, p27).

Within Ireland quality of life indicators have been locally developed in order to create a

quality of life survey, which was conducted in Galway City in 2006. These indicators

were derived from focus groups, which “were used extensively to obtain the opinions of

various strands of the community in Galway, regarding the issues they considered to be

germane to quality of life in the city”. (Fahy, 2008, Appendix 1). This was part of a

larger research project entitled, Galway 21: Implementing the Principles and Practices

of Sustainable Development in Galway City Council, funded by the Environmental

Protection Agency’s ERTDI Programme, and being undertaken by staff of the

Department of Geography, NUI, Galway in conjunction with Galway City Council.

(Fahy & Ó Cinnéide, 2006, p2).

The results of the survey showed significant variations in the quality of life of

participants according to their neighbourhood within Galway City. A clear conclusion

from this is that quality of life is influenced by location. (Fahy, 2008, vii). This would

indicate that neighbourhood amenities, such as community gardens, will have the most

effect upon the “Quality of Life” of residents that share the same neighbourhood. As

will the absence or presence of other amenities, and facilities. This supposition is

utilised within the research for this dissertation by conducting a public survey of quality

of life issues, which have partly been drawn from the Quality of Life in Galway City,

Interim Report, by Fahy & Ó Cinnéide, (2006). This quality of life survey, conducted in

- 19

Phibsborough, North Central Dublin, has been accompanied by a survey on how

community gardening is perceived to effect some of these “Quality of Life” issues. This

survey is discussed in detail within both the Methodology, and Discussion chapters of

this dissertation.

The focus group analysis for the Galway Quality of Life Survey identified 9

significant themes, which are listed below:

(1) Transport

(2) Size of the city

(3) Community

(4) Identity

(5) Facilities

(6) Planning and development

(7) Environment

(8) Economic considerations

(9) Social considerations

All, except perhaps the first two (transport and city size) are relevant to community

gardening. The contribution of successful community gardening projects towards

quality of life is actually composed of multiple interdependent contributions, and these

vary from one community garden project to another. There is sometimes a

misconception that community gardening is solely about growing vegetables, and

confusion between community gardens and allotments is common place. In analysis of

the similarities and themes that community gardens exhibit, within the community

garden movement in the UK, it was revealed that:

- 20

“Despite the literature on urban agriculture putting an emphasis on food growing,

from which it might be concluded that this would be the main preoccupation of

community garden schemes, the results showed that there was a multiplicity of

purposes for their existence which related more to their function in community

development…”

(Holland, 2004, p303)

As community gardening projects rely on voluntary activity, it is to be logically

expected that it contributes positively to the quality of life of these volunteers’, because

otherwise they would cease allocating their free time towards participating in such

projects. The strength, and complexity of community gardening contributions, towards

quality of life can be appreciated by looking at Figure 1. Here the multiple contributions

of community gardening towards different quality of life components are apparent,

along with their linkages. The difficulty that there is in defining “Quality of Life”

becomes easier to appreciate when viewed against the complexity of contributions from

community gardening alone.

- 21

Figure 1: The potential contributions of community garden projects towards

- 22

“Quality of Life”. The left hand column indicates differing quality of life subsets, while

the right hand column indicates the ways in which community gardening can

contribution towards “Quality of Life”. Linkages are made where it is argued that

community gardening can have a beneficial effect on quality of life.

Many of these linkages are common sense, some might be less obvious. The numbers in

green within Figure 1 above, relate to references within the literature where these

linkages are claimed. They are listed below:

(1) (Cullen, 2008, p64) (22) (Hall, 1996, p29) (Grayson & Campbell, 2000)

(2) (Hall, 1996, p36) (23) (Hall, 1996, p30)

(3) (NENW, 2008, p21) (24) (Hall, 1996, p29)

(4) (Hall, 1996, p28) (25) (Grayson & Campbell, 2000) (El-Sahn, 2004, p24)

(5) (NENW, 2008, p28) (26) (Hall, 1996, p27, 29) (El-Sahn, 2004, p27-28)

(6) (Cullen, 2008, p86-87) (27) (Hall, 1996, p27)

(7) (Hall, 1996, p27, 30) (28) (Hall, 1996, p42)

(8) (Hall, 1996, p27) (29) (Grayson & Campbell, 2000)

(9) (Cullen, 2008, p33) (30) (NENW, 2008, p29)

(10) (Hall, 1996, p31) (31) (Hall, 1996, p30)

(11) (Hall, 1996, p30) p23 (32) (Hall, 1996, p27, 30)

(12) (Grayson & Campbell, 2000) (33) (Hall, 1996, p32)

(13) (NENW, 2008, p23-24) (34) (Hall, 1996, p32)

(14) (Hall, 1996, p29) (El-Sahn, 2004, p27-28) (35) (Hall, 1996, p27, 29)

(16) (Hall, 1996, p29) (36) (Hall, 1996, p27, 31, 42)

(17) (Hall, 1996, p27) (15) (Hall, 1996, p30)

(18) (Cullen, 2008, p79) (37) (El-Sahn, 2004, p17)

(19) (Grayson & Campbell, 2000)

(20) (El-Sahn, 2004, p25) (Grayson & Campbell, 2000)

(21) (El-Sahn, 2004, p25)

The quality of life subsets and the community gardening contributions to quality of life

are colour coded in relation to the literature they are derived from. (source: Fahy,

2008; Fahy & Ó Cinnéide, 2006; Natural Economy Northwest (NENW) programme,

2008; Hall, 1996)

- 23

In Dublin community gardens are relatively recent phenomena, and present a change in

the core motivation from that of the urban food growing of previous generations upon

allotments. This change has been facilitated by the localised benefits of globalisation,

and the consequent stability of food supplies in developed western countries.

“The efficiency of World markets have ensured through imports, a ready supply of

fresh food available year round without the hindrance of local weather or

seasons.”

(Hall, 1996, p20).

In general food is now much cheaper and more widely available than in previous

generations, and in consequence the primary motivation for community, and allotment

gardening, is now recreational and social. Cullen in his investigation of urban

agriculture in South Dublin finds that:

“…the objective of the allotment was to feed a family. The investigation into

allotment holding has shown that the allotment has changed from this usage into a

form of recreation.”

(Cullen, 2008, p97)

Now that the imperative of having to grow your own food has largely disappeared from

the lives of Dublin’s residents, it leaves behind, and allows the growth of “Quality of

Life” as the primary reason for engaging in community gardening.

“The process of community gardening is as important as the products”

(Burt-O’Dea, Seminar, 2009a)

- 24

2.6 The Provisions for Community Gardening through International Agreements,

and Government Legislation.

There is no government legislation in Ireland that mandates local authority, or

government bodies, to acquire land for the use of community gardening. The nearest

useful legislation that can be employed is the 1926 Acquisition of Land (Allotment

Act). Through this act vacant lands were acquired by the then Dublin Corporation, and

made available for allotment plot holdings. These allotments reached their zenith during

the 2nd World War, but then declined thereafter. Many of the allotment sites were

redeveloped and built upon during the post war years. It seems that while the act

facilitated the creation of allotments in times of economic crisis, it did not provide long

term security of tenure for these allotment sites.

“A local authority shall not acquire land under this section for any greater estate or

interest than a term of five years.”

(Government of Ireland, 1926, sec. 3, para. 2)

Of more contemporary significance to community gardening is “Local Agenda 21”

which facilitates sustainable development at a community level. The United Nations

Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) took place in Rio de Janeiro

in 1992. This created a number of important documents and conventions, one of the

most notable of which is Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is most explicit in its call for inclusion

and the participation of the public in achieving sustainable development, even at a local

level. It is within chapter 28 of Agenda 21 that a dialogue between the local authorities,

their citizens, and other local groups, is called for in order to aid sustainable

development and environmental awareness at a local level. This is known as Local

- 25

Agenda 21, and is to achieve Agenda 21 objectives via local authority programmes.

Agenda 21 also states, within chapter 36, that education on sustainable development

should occur at a local level, and be available to all:

“The objective is to promote broad public awareness as an essential part of a

global education effort to strengthen attitudes, values and actions which are

compatible with sustainable development. It is important to stress the principle of

devolving authority, accountability and resources to the most appropriate level

with preference given to local responsibility and control over awareness-building

activities.”

(UN, 1993, para. 36.9)

“Countries should facilitate and promote non-formal education activities at the

local, regional and national levels by cooperating with and supporting the efforts

of non-formal educators and other community-based organizations.”

(UN, 1993, para. 36.5.K)

The 1997 government publication “Sustainable Development, A Strategy for Ireland”

stated that:

“The Government is now requesting all local authorities to complete a Local

Agenda 21 for their areas by 1998.”

(DEHLG, 1997, p188).

Prior to the publication of “Sustainable Development, A Strategy for Ireland” the

Department of the Environment had already published “Local Authorities and

- 26

Sustainable Development: Guidelines on Local Agenda 21” for local authorities in

1996, to aid them in formulating their own Local Agenda 21 programmes. As well as

calling for all local authorities to complete their own Local Agenda 21, the “Sustainable

Development, A Strategy for Ireland” publication also recommends that access to

environmental education is available to all.

“Environmental education and awareness must be viewed in the broadest context,

which includes access to information and the dissemination of information to the

public. The informal and non-academic aspect of enhancing environmental

awareness in this way embraces the whole population, not just those in formal

education.”

(DEHLG, 1997, p164).

Community Gardens deliver on the requirement of both “Local Agenda 21”, and

“Sustainable Development, A Strategy for Ireland” in providing an inclusive amenity

for environmental education that is available to all members of the public. The

suitability of community gardens for Local Agenda 21 projects within the Dublin Local

Authorities is indicated by the fact that Local Agenda 21 funding has been made

available for their creation, and for projects that community gardens run. Examples

include Shanganagh Community Garden; Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, in

2004, and Summerhills Community Garden; Dublin City Council in 2009. Community

gardening is also listed as a suitable project for Local Agenda 21 funding by Fingal

County Council (FCC, 2009a), and by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council

(DLRCC, 2009a).

- 27

2.7 Community Gardening as part of Dublin’s County, and Local Area Planning.

Planning authorities have a statutory responsibility to plan for the sustainable

development of their areas, primarily through the Development Plan process but also

through Local Area Plans. (DEHLG, 2008, p9).

Although, as demonstrated within Sections 2.5 and 2.6, community gardens are an

important contributor to sustainable development, and “Quality of Life”, within an

urban setting, they do not tend to feature within Local Area Development Plans for the

Greater Dublin Area, to date. Using a case study to illustrate this; the Draft Local Area

Plan for Phibsborough/Mountjoy, makes no reference to community gardens, and there

are very few references to gardens at all within the plan. (DCC, 2008a). In the case of

the “Environmental Report of the Phibsborough/Mountjoy Local Area Plan Strategic

Environmental Assessment” gardens are mentioned, but only in so far as “front gardens

are not required” in respect of the key site objectives for home zones. (CAAS, 2008,

p93). This is balanced with the vague objective of “use landscaping to complement the

public space created”. (CAAS, 2008, p93). However “the Phibsborough/Mountjoy Draft

Local Area Plan Managers Report on Submissions from Public Display” clearly

indicates the desire from the public for such garden amenities:

“there were also requests for allotments to be provided on the banks of the

[Royal] canal [6 submissions], this had been identified at pre-draft stage, and the

plan had not provided for them.”

- 28

The response within this document being:

“options for the lands such as allotments, bio-diversity centre and parkland could

be considered as part of the canal plan”

(DCC, 2008b, pp39-40)

However with the publication of the “Sustainable Residential Development in Urban

Areas-Guidelines for Planning Authorities” document (2008), which provides detailed

guidance on the provision of open space in new development areas, it may be the case

that such Local Area Plans are now out of date. The Provision for allotments and

community gardens is one of the recommended qualitative standards for public open

space, recommended within the guidelines. (DEHLG, 2008, p26). Furthermore the

“Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas-Guidelines for Planning

Authorities” document (2008) also emphasises “that it remains Government policy to

encourage more sustainable urban development through the avoidance of excessive

suburbanisation and through the promotion of higher densities in appropriate locations.”

(DEHLG, 2008, p5). This will naturally lead to reduced provision of private gardens, a

side effect that community gardening maybe able to alleviate.

The Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2004-2016 also

propose a development path that will “consolidate development and increase overall

densities of development which will lead to a more compact urban form, relative to the

size of the population” (DLRCC, 2009b, p100).

Within the Dublin City Development Plan 2005 -2011 it is recognised that

“good quality recreational amenities are seen as beneficial to the physical and mental

health, and quality of life, of the population”, (DCC, 2005, p84). However community

gardening does not appear to feature significantly within the recreational amenities of

- 29

the Development Plan. Community gardening is only referred to in an ancillary context,

as an additional usage for Dublin City School Grounds, (DCC, 2005, p35). This is

despite the fact that it is recognised, within the Dublin City Development Plan, that high

density housing requires and puts much emphasis upon recreational facilities and open

spaces:

“Much of Dublin City’s recent population increase has been accommodated in

high density apartment developments, many of them in inner city areas. The need

for increased recreational provision and open space in these areas is recognised.”

(DCC, 2005, p84).

Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council takes a much more proactive approach to

community gardening. Here it is included within its Draft County Development Plan, as

one of the councils Open Space and Parks Policies.

“It is Council policy to support the development of additional public allotments.

Public allotments and community gardens can have a number of benefits including

the promotion of healthy lifestyles, biodiversity, and providing a cheaper local and

sustainable source of food. The Council will seek to identify additional sites for

such activities.”

(DLRCC, 2009c, p99)

The South Dublin County Council Development Plan 2004-2010 contains no reference

to Community gardening (SDCC 2004), although the county council began the process

of preparing a new County Development Plan on 4th November 2008, with a public

consultation. This has led to the publication of the South Dublin County Council Draft

- 30

Development Plan 2010-2016, which was made available to the public on Tuesday 22nd

September 2009. Within this draft plan community gardening features prominently,

with it being a council policy:

“Policy SCR63: Community Gardening.

It is the Policy of the Council to assist and support residents and residents’ groups

in forming and developing community gardens at appropriate locations in the

County. The Council will provide, where possible, material assistance and advice

to groups involved in community gardening and assist with sustainable water

solutions.”

(SDCC, 2009a, p71)

On current trends it is likely that the high profile of community gardening within the

new draft county plan for South Dublin will be replicated within other Dublin Local

Authority county plans in the future.

Within Fingal County Development Plan 2005-2011 there is no reference to

community gardening. Provision of allotments does feature within the County Plan,

with objective “RE08” being; “To provide allotments within Greenbelt and rural and

agricultural areas where they are accessible from the built-up area of the County, to be

available to the community.” (FCC, 2005, p90). The objective’s wording could be

deemed inexplicit as to what is considered accessible, and by what means of transport.

Furthermore this objective could conceivably be used to block the provision of

community gardening and allotments within urban areas, or upon lands zoned for

development within Fingal County Council.

Getting the local authorities on board with community gardening projects would

help immensely in providing lands and improving security of tenure. However there are

- 31

also other considerations, and other players with conflicting interests. It is often the case

that land ideally suited to urban community gardening is kept unused awaiting long

term development. This is a common problem within large cities across the developed

and developing World, and was addressed by the Bruntland Report in 1987; “The

available resources in or close to cities are often underused. Many landowners leave

well-located sites undeveloped in order to benefit later from their increasing value as the

city grows.” (WCED, 1987, p253). Those lands that are made available to community

gardening projects could unwittingly lead to project failure if the location is unsecure, a

significant distance from interested participants, or unsuitable for gardening due to

previous urban usages.

2.8 A Recent History of Community Gardening in Dublin.

While it is not feasible to discuss in detail the individual histories of all the community

gardens within Dublin, it is worthwhile to look at some of the significant events that

have occurred. It is particularly worthwhile to do so with 21st century residential public

community gardens. This is because such a timeline of events can help illuminate issues

and attitudes that have shaped community gardening in Dublin. For it is within

residential public community gardens that we will see the greatest impact by different

sectors of urban society. While Dublin City Council community gardens within

sheltered housing are genuinely community gardens, that are maintained and often

planned by the residents, they do also have the quality of a private garden in that access

is not permitted to all members of the public. This together with official sanction, and

support, from Dublin City Council means that they are not exposed to the full extent of

social and legal issues that a residential public community garden faces. Dublin City

Council’s senior citizen community gardening initiatives have been established for quite

- 32

a while, dating back to the mid 1990’s. (Grey, Meeting Notes, 2009). However

community gardens which have been set up in council estates, and flat complexes

within the different Dublin local authorities have been a more recent addition. This

maybe because until relatively recently allotments were still an amenity available to

Dublin City Council tenants, and indeed allotments are still provided by South Dublin,

Fingal, and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Councils. Although it is arguable that this

is not a widely available amenity as, “In 2000 Dublin had five existing allotment sites

including: Donabate, DeCourcey Square in Glasnevin, Grand Canal, Goatstown, and

Lynch’s Lane in Lucan.” (Cullen, 2008, p69). The insufficiency in allotment capacity

available to urban Dublin residents is highlighted by the current situation of Dublin City

Council. Here there are currently no allotments provided by the local authority, although

50 plots will soon be provided when St Anne’s Park Allotments’ open. However there

are currently 450 people on an allotment waiting list for these 50 plots. (Morrogh,

Meeting Notes, 2009a)

It is against this background that a number of resident and activist led community

gardens have appeared upon unused land over the last number of years. Contemporary

online articles are available in the public domain, and serve to provide a quite detailed

account of events relating to these activist gardens, set up on unused land without

official permission. From this archive source, the key events in the history of these

Dublin activist community gardens are presented below. Within central Dublin, the first

such contemporary community garden was set up in April 2005 on squatted land along

the banks of the Grand Canal in Dolphins barn.

“A diverse enough group formed from it and for nearly a year it existed as a

"social space". An exhibition in the local library did attract locals, and letters to

the community, as well as seeking out community networks, were means to make

- 33

the project a success. All in all about a hundred people, from all different types of

worlds, were part of it or visited.”

(Phibsborough_Community_Garden, 2008).

“On Sunday the 19th of March [2006], 2 days after a very successful open day, we

were visited in the garden by one of the directors of the White Heather Industrial

Estate, on whose land the garden exists. He had received a letter from the City

Council stating that their estate needed to be cleaned up or else they would receive

a fine. We had made unsuccessful attempts to establish contact with the owners at

the beginning of the project… From that time on communication was kept up

between the garden crew, the industrial estate, and the council, who had already

given some months previous a €600 grant to the garden. A deadline of the 10th of

April was agreed on for a final decision from White Heather as to whether we

would be allowed to carry on working in this space… 26th march [2006] – Meet

again in garden with same director, a different tone this time: While he

acknowledged that there had been some improvement in the garden's appearance

compared with last weekend, he told me that at this point he considers that our use

of the land is trespass and that we are going to have to leave. He recommended

that we remove anything of value.”

(Dolphins Barn Garden, 2006).

- 34

Another community garden was also set up on unused land in Phibsborough, between

the Royal Canal and the train line.

The garden was started on Sunday the 25th of September [2005]… On Saturday

[25th February 2006] an open public gardening day happened during which many

baby Larch and Beech trees were planted.

(Dublin ECG, 2006).

However this site has since been abandoned, and by February 2009 it was considerably

overgrown, although some of the tree saplings remain.

- 35

Plate 3: The site of the Phibsborough Royal Canal Community Garden as it appeared in February 2009.Source: Robert Moss

Plate 2: Phibsborough Royal Canal Community Garden as it appeared in February 2006.Source: Dublin ECG, 2006

In the Spring of 2006 a new community garden was opened in Finglas. The garden is in

the grounds of St. Joseph’s National School for Girls, on Barry Avenue, in Finglas.

“The garden came about after one of the teachers in St. Joseph’s school met Lara,

a Dolphin’s Barn community gardener living in Finglas, through the Catholic

Worker community in Rialto. With the agreement of the school authorities, she

offered an area of the school grounds as the basis to start a new community garden

for Dublin city.”

(Baynes, 2006).

The Finglas Community Garden is still active as of 2009, and is attended by a number

of gardeners, some of whom had previously been Dolphin’s Barn community garden

volunteers.

A second, short lived attempt was made at setting up a community garden, upon

the banks of the Grand Canal, very close to the original Dolphins Barn site from which

gardeners were evicted in 2006.

“Around April 2007 members of the original garden crew and some from the

newer Finglas plot opened land beside Sally’s bridge, 100 metres down the canal

from the original plot, on an unused green field behind a fence which backed onto

the back of the Dublin Mosque. They were there for only a short while and

constructed a lovely wooden sign welcoming people to the garden, but they were

quickly notified from the council that they should pack up or else they would be

threatened with "trespass" orders and all that goes along with that…The gardening

collective left this space after only a few weeks and the space has gone back to

- 36

http://www.geocities.com/dublincatholicworker/

http://www.geocities.com/dublincatholicworker/

what it was before: unused green space alongside the canal where before much

evidence of drug abuse was found in the space.”

(Dolphins Barn Garden, 2007).

However, around this time an official space was found for a community garden in this

part of Dublin, and the community gardeners have been there ever since. It is located

upon the South Circular road, and is very close to the previous two sites upon the Grand

Canal.

“The South Circular Road Community Food Garden Project started in April 2007.

We have a derelict site on loan from ST Salvage Company that we have converted

into a community food garden. This is a continuation of the initial successful

Dolphins Barn Community squatted food garden that was on the canal from 2005

-2007.”

(South Circular Road Garden, 2009).

Meanwhile there was already an existing allotment and community garden at De

Courcey Square in Glasnevin, Dublin 11. According to residents, this site has been used

for allotments since the 1st World War. It had been rented by the residents, from

different private landowners over the years, until it was purchased by Dublin City

Council a few years ago. This was after the Dartmouth Square debacle in 2006, and

possibly occurred as a measure to prevent a repeat of such property mismanagement.

The gardens were levelled, and new pathways, and beds were constructed by the Parks

department in April 2009. There are currently three different sizes of allotment plots,

along with communal flower beds, seating areas, and plans for a community herb

garden and compost facility. There are no charges associated with the use of these

- 37

allotments, but they are solely for use by the 47 households’ resident in the square, and

yet there is still a waiting list for them.

Within the catchment of South Dublin County Council is Greenhills Community

Garden, which is located near Walkinstown, Dublin 12. “The Greenhills Community

Garden officially opened on the 21st June 2008 on land held in trust on behalf of the

Greenhills Residents' Association.” (Greenhills Residents Association, 2008). Much

support was provided by South Dublin County Council during the initial creation of the

Greenhills Community Garden. This consisted of site clearance and the installation of

security fencing around the plot of land. However the land for the community garden

actually already belonged to the Greenhills Residents Association, having been left to

them in trust since the development of the estate back in the 1960’s. No function could

be found for the land, and over the years it became a problem site for dumping, drug

use, and anti social behaviour. Things came to a head when a developer attempted to

build upon the land, and purchase additional surrounding properties as part of his

proposed development. In order to counter this action the residents had to first resurrect

- 38

Plate 4: De Courcey Square. 5th April 2009. Source: Robert Moss

Plate 5: De Courcey Square. 2nd August 2009. Source: Robert Moss

the Greenhills Residents Association, which had become dormant, in a legally

competent manner. The Greenhills Community garden is well organised, and

underpinned by strong legal ownership structures. Not only is the land secure from

development, which is not sanctioned by the Greenhills Residents Association, but it is

also protected from future claims on rights of occupancy from the gardeners using the

land. The garden has public liability insurance, its own constitution, and a bank account

for the lodgement of monies. (Kenny & Byrne, Interviewee (1), 2009).

Within the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council catchment area there was a

community garden set up in Shanganagh Cliffs Estate, Shankill.

“The garden project began in July 2003, when the Junior Estate management

Forum decided they wanted help to create a community garden in the Shanganagh

Cliffs Estate”.

(El-Sahn, 2004, p76).

“The Junior Estate Management Forum came to the Environmental Awareness

Officer with the project.”

(El-Sahn, 2004, p6).

“The project was carried out in association with the

Rathsallagh/Shanganagh/Clifton Junior Estate Management Forum Committee,

the Department of the Environment, the Parks Department, the Community

Department, and the National Environmental Education Centre.”

(El-Sahn, 2004, p9).

- 39

Plate 7: The site of the original Shanganagh Community garden in September 2009.(Source: Robert Moss)

The project stalled after the summer of 2003, and then the National Environmental

Education Centre were brought on board to help move the project along. Despite much

effort and resources it appears there was a lack of ownership, and responsibility by the

Junior Estate Management Forum. This reached a critical state when no members of the

Junior Estate Management Forum turned up for an agreed session, on the 26th July 2004,

to plant trees and shrubs at the garden, which had been provided by the Parks

department. (El-Sahn, 2008, p79). Both the Junior Estate Management Forum, and the

Community Garden are now defunct. (Traynor, Interview, 2009).

- 40

Plate 6: The Original Shanganah Community garden in 2004.(Source: DLRCC, 2004)

As with South Dublin County Council there is a stronger culture of allotments within

Fingal County Council, than there is of community gardening. The Council maintains

two allotment schemes, one at Blanchardstown (Powerstown) and another at Turvey in

Donabate. There are 225 plots at each site. There is currently only one community

garden at Fortlawn Housing Estate in northwest Dublin which is maintained by twenty

young people of the Fortlawn area. This is located at the Fortlawn Community Centre,

and is organised by the Fortlawn Development Group.

“Fingal County Council have provided not only funding but also manpower and

the expertise to get the project off the ground…The Community Department has

allocated €1,000 to the scheme, the Parks Department has cleared out the old beds,

put down weed killer, laid compost, and prepared the ground for use by the young

people.”

(Community Voice, 2009).

At the start of the year the children are charged €2 for seedlings and other resources,

which helps instil a sense of value into the project and the resources it uses. Fingal

County Council is looking at setting up similar schemes in Skerries and Balbriggan.

Like Dublin City Council Fingal County Council is also involved in supporting

community gardens for senior citizens. Although in Fingal there are only three, and

these are all in private ownership, being in day care and respite facilities.

- 41

Figure 2: A map of Dublin indicating the positions of current and recent community garden

projects.

Key:

= Residential community gardens. Although independent of local authorities,

some receive local authority funding.

= Dublin City Council sheltered accommodation community garden. Public access

is restricted.

= Dublin City Council backed community gardening initiatives. Available to the

public, but access maybe restricted within some housing complexes.

- 42

= South Dublin Council backed community gardening initiatives. Available to the

public, but access maybe restricted within some schools.

= Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, Estates Management backed

community gardening initiatives. Available to the public, but access maybe restricted

within some housing complexes.

= Fingal County Council backed community gardening initiatives. Available to

the public, but access maybe restricted.

= Fingal County Council backed community gardening initiatives within private

care centres. Public access is restricted.

= Defunct community gardening projects that feature within this research

dissertation.

Source: map = Google Maps. Data = (Moss, 2009a)

- 43

Chapter 3 – Methodology.

3.0 Introduction.

The objective of this chapter is to discuss the methodologies’ employed in gathering

both primary and secondary data for this research dissertation.

The methodology involved a wide ranging literature review, that was conducted

prior to, and during the gathering of primary research data. The methodology also

utilised two separate primary research techniques. This method was employed for two

reasons. The first of these reasons is that this allows a degree of triangulation between

different research techniques. This can lend validity to the research by highlighting

areas of commonality, and discrepancy, between the findings from the two methods of

data collection. The second reason is that a review of the literature highlighted an

apparent lack of quantitative research on community gardening. The reason for this is

because most participants are biased in favour of community gardening, and non

participants are largely ignorant or unaffected by community gardening. An opportunity

presented itself to gather quantitative data on public attitude towards community

gardening, with the establishment of a new community garden within Phibsborough,

North Central Dublin. The nature of this quantitative survey approach is considered in

detail within Section 5.1.1.

3.1 Literature Review.

Papers covering quality of life, community gardening, and urban green infrastructure;

primarily from Ireland and the UK, were widely consulted for background information,

and for formulating the interview questions and thematic framework for this research.

- 44

For the historical and operational context of community gardening in Dublin, two

previous DIT dissertations were extensively studied for their invaluable local

perspective. These dissertations were by Cullen, and El-Sahn. Dissertations from further

afield, which analysed the social contribution of community gardens within the urban

environment, were also studied. Of particular note being Hall’s work on the social

benefits of community gardening in Canada. This was forwarded to me by the South

Circular Road Community Garden.

Online resources such as dublinfoodgrowing.org, getirelandgrowing.org,

irishcommunitygardening.org, organicmattersmag.com, and communitygarden.org.au,

were all used for gathering information, resources, maps, dates, events and for accessing

literature.

Government and national policy on planning and environment was appraised via

the Department of Environment, Heritage, and Local Government Guidelines, the

Dublin Regional Planning Guidelines, and through national strategy papers. Local

authority policies towards community gardening and green infrastructure were

researched via the County Plans and the Strategic Environmental Assessments of some

Local Area Plans. Extensive use was made of all four Dublin County Council websites

to gather background information and some history on their community gardens,

allotments and other green infrastructure. The minutes of council meetings were also

accessed online where available, and when pertinent to community gardens and

allotments. This was specifically for Fingal and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County

Council.

Three visits were made to the Dublin City Council offices at Wood Quay, on the

24th and 25th and 28th August, to discuss the extent and locations of Dublin City Council

community gardening initiatives. The meetings were with Richard Grey, who works

- 45

within the “Older Persons Unit” of the “Community Development section” which is

part of the “Housing and Residential services Department” of Dublin City Council.

Both the Green Parties “Get Ireland Growing” Campaign on the 31st of March

2009, and the Convergence 14 “Rethinking the City” seminar on the 24th April 2009, I

attended in Cultivate, Temple Bar, Dublin 2. I also participated in the Dublin Food

Growing meetings of the 24th August 2009, at the Dublin Civic Offices at Wood Quay,

and again on the 7th September, 5th October, and the 2nd of November at the Carmelite

Community Centre on Aungiers Street, Dublin 2. The first annual meeting of the Dublin

City Community Forum Environmental Focus Group was also attended on the 10th

September, and it’s AGM on the 28th of September. Use was also made of information

from numerous e-mails and telephone conversations.

3.2 Survey of Public Attitudes.

A survey was carried out in Phibsborough researching the public’s attitudes to

community gardening within proximity to them. This was done to capture quantitative

data as to the level of public interest in community gardening. The time and location

were opportune as a community gardening project was initiated in March 2009. This

aided the engagement with the local residents as to their perception of any benefits.

The survey was extensively redrafted from that of the original created in

February 2009, with the aid of two pilot surveys conducted in March and April 2009.

The final operational survey used being the 7th draft. A satisfactory style was found that

utilised a two part survey. The first part of which was concerned with the nature and

satisfaction of participants with their quality of life in Phibsborough. The second part of

the survey then questioned how community gardening might affect these quality of life

issues. It was a successful format in that all those who were prepared to tackle the

- 46

survey were engaged by the issues of quality of life. Many of the survey questions were

derived from the EPA Strive 17, End of Project Report, on Quality of Life in Galway

City: Questionnaire Survey Results by Electoral Division.

The style of the questions was simplified into “Yes” and “No” responses, with

the option to insert additional comments. The earlier drafts had used a variety of

different question styles, such as multiple rank order questions. These overwhelmed

some respondents, while the changing question formats could confuse others. The

survey was conducted between the 5th August 2009 and the 30th September 2009.

This survey was limited in its exploration of the issues surrounding the subject of

community gardening, and focussed instead on how a community garden might

contribute to the daily life of the residents concerned. Wider economic and

environmental issues, such as planning and land use, business and job opportunities, and

the potential contribution to climate and biodiversity, were beyond the scope of the

survey. Strategic issues, including planning, economy, and the environment, are

relevant to community gardening within an urban environment, but have not been

addressed within the survey as they may distract from attitudes towards community

gardening at a neighbourhood level. Further analysis of this survey is within the Survey

Approach Section of the Discussion, Section 5.1.1. The complete survey questionnaire

can be seen within Appendix 1.

3.3 Semi-Structured Interviews.

The bulk of the data gathered for this research project is qualitative data acquired

through interviewing community garden participants, and local authority staff.

Interviews were held with participants at the following community gardens:

- 47

South Circular Road Community Garden

Finglas Community Garden

Sitric Road Community Composting Garden

Greenhills Community Garden

Shanganagh Development Project and Gardening Club

All four Dublin Local Authorities were interviewed:

Dublin City Council; Parks Department, Housing and Residential Services Department,

Community Development Department.

Fingal County Council; Planning Department.

Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown; Economic Development and Community Department

South Dublin Council; Parks and Landscape Services Department, Planning

Department, Community Services Department.

Because of the relevance of these individuals to community gardens, and their

experience of community gardening, it is preferential that they should be interviewed,

instead of surveyed. As Denscombe points out:

“Although interviews can be used for the collection of straightforward factual

information, their potential as a data collection method is better exploited when

they are applied to the exploration of more complex and subtle phenomena”

(Denscombe, 2007, p174)

- 48

Chapter 4 – Results.

4.0 Introduction.

The purpose of this chapter is to present the results of the primary research techniques.

Much of the discussion relating to the techniques used within the methodology is

conducted within the discussion in Chapter 5. However it is necessary to discuss some

of the details of these techniques within this chapter, so as to contextualise what is being

presented.


The three data analysis charts below present the statistical results from the Survey that

was conducted from the 5th August to the 30th September 2009. A total of 43 people

completed the survey which consists of two complementary sets of questions. Part 1 of

the survey consists of questions about “Quality of Life” issues, while Part 2 questions

the impact of community gardening upon this “Quality of Life”. The third and final data

analysis chart looks at the demographics of the survey participants. A copy of the

survey with additional references to question sources can be found within Appendix 1.

The questions were primarily of a simple “Yes” or “No” format, because this

aided ease of response for the respondents completing the survey. It also greatly

simplifies the presentation of the quantitative data derived from the survey. The tan

coloured columns present the percentage values for the “Yes”, “No”, and “No

Response” or “Don’t Know” responses, to the questions within the far left hand column.

The question numbers in black, and the sub question numbers in blue, are also included

- 49

within the question column. The question sequence within the data analysis chart

follows that presented to the respondents within the questionnaire.

- 50

Figure 3: The statistical analysis of the results of Part 1 of the Survey. This part of the

survey measures people’s perception of their quality of life as measured by different

indicators.

- 51

Figure 4: The statistical analysis of the results of Part 2 of the Survey. This part of the

survey measures people’s opinion on where a community garden may contribute to the

neighbourhood quality of life as measured by different indicators.

- 52

Figure 5: The statistical analysis of the demographics of those that participated in the

survey.

The final question of the survey was question 10, within part 2 of the survey. This asked

if the respondent had any other comments. As well as writing comments at the end of

the survey, some participants also inserted comments under specific questions. As these

are an important source of qualitative data from participants, who were not otherwise

interviewed, they have been included within Appendix 2, where the different comments

are listed under the specific questions that they relate to.

- 53

4.2 Semi Structured Interviews.

The 11 semi structured interviews that were conducted fit into two groups, participant

interviews and local authority interviews. Pertinent information from the interview

transcripts is collated together under the following 4 themes:

(1) Attitudes,

(2) Policy and Practice,

(3) Wider issues,

(4) Recommendations.

In turn the four themes above are split into the various sub themes within Table 1

below:

Theme Sub Theme

- 54

Attitudes On the Economic value of Community

GardeningAttitudes On EducationAttitudes On Community DevelopmentAttitudes On Opposition to Community

GardeningAttitudes On Quality of LifePolicy and Practice On Community gardeningPolicy and Practice On PlanningPolicy and Practice On Resource ManagementPolicy and Practice On Agenda 21Wider issues On issues that encourage or prevent

participation in Community GardeningWider issues On Issues that contribute to success or

failureRecommendations On Resource ManagementRecommendations On Land Management

Table 1: The list of semi structured interview sub themes (right hand column), and the

themes they belong to (left hand column).

It is the interview response data that falls within these themes, and sub themes, that is

used to create concepts for further analysis within the discussion section of this

dissertation. The interview transcripts have been used to derive transcript theme sheets.

Within these transcript theme sheets all the comments and answers from the interview,

that are relevant to a particular sub theme, have been collated together. These transcript

theme sheets are included within the appendixes according to specific interviews. The

11 interviews’ and their corresponding analysis theme sheet appendixes are listed

below:

Participant Interviews’ and their reference number (1 to 5):

(1) O’Sullivan, S; et al. South Circular Road Community Garden. 30th July 2009:

Appendix 4.

- 55

(2) Kenny, E; Byrne, C. Greenhills Community Garden. 4th August 2009:

Appendix 5.

(3) Hill, L. Finglas Community Garden. 20th August 2009. Appendix 6.

(4) Burt-O’Dea, K. Sitric Road Community Composting. 31st August 2009. Appendix 7.

(5) Traynor, A. Shanganagh Community Development Project. 9thSeptember 2009.

Appendix 8.

Local Authority Interviews’ and their reference number (6 to 11):

(6) Morrogh, W. Dublin City Council Community Development. 27th July 2009.

Appendix 9.

(7) Ebbs, M; et al. Dublin City Council Housing and Residential Services Department.

6th August 2009. Appendix 10.

(8) McEvoy, N; Dowling, C. Dublin City Parks Department. 7 th September 2009.

Appendix 11.

(9) Hannon, M; et al. South Dublin County Council. 21st September 2009. Appendix 12.

- 56

(10) Clabby, G. Fingal County Council Planning Department. 11 th September 2009.

Appendix 13.

(11) Lawless, D. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council Economic Development

and Community Department. 29 th September 2009. Appendix 14.

The key concepts derived from the interview transcripts, with the aid of the transcript

theme sheets, are presented below. Each key concept is annotated with the number of

the interview, or interviews, within which it occurred. These are numbered 1 to 11

within the above interview list.

These key concepts are collated together, under the theme and sub theme that they are

relevant to. To aid comparison between community gardening participants, and local

authorities, the key concepts are collated separately for community gardening

participants, and local authorities. Those derived from the community gardening

participant interviews are listed first. After this the key concepts derived from the local

authority interviews are listed.

- 57

4.2.1 Community Gardening Participant Interviews.

(Interviews 1 to 5)

Theme: Attitudes

Sub Theme: On the Economic value of Community Gardening

Key Concepts:

There is not appreciation of the financial benefits that community gardening can offer,

in offsetting the cost of maintaining green infrastructure, within the local authority. This

is because community gardening is still new and everyone is still learning how it works.

(1)

In Belfast the rental rates of local properties have increased after a community garden

was introduced to a problem green site. (1)

This can be a positive or negative effect of community garden, depending on whether

you are the owner or the tenant. (1)

Community gardening is an affordable activity, accessible to all. (1)

Community gardening can offer an affordable access to otherwise expensive organic

food. (1)

Unmanaged sites are used for illegal dumping, which can involve hazardous waste such

as asbestos. (2)

- 58

The cost of site clearance was a significant cost to South Dublin Council. (2)

Through a teacher the school approached the gardeners to request help in managing

some of the school grounds. (3)

People have stated that they are moving to the area because of its sense of community,

which largely began with the garden. (4)

Over the lifetime of the garden a number of businesses have chosen to locate to the

neighbourhood. (4)

Community gardening does not offer cost savings for the council. (5)

- 59

Theme: Attitudes

Sub Theme: On Environmental Education:

Key Concepts:

That environmental education is a primary role for community gardens. (1) (5)

Funding for educational courses, as a way of bringing in the local populations is

lacking. (1)

Community gardens can offer a more informal and gradual learning process. (1)

Community gardens offer a medium to learn about cooperation and sharing that maybe

missing from contemporary society. (1)

Community gardening allows people to learn collaboratively from a project. (4)

Community gardening offers accelerated learning through skill sharing. (1)

Community gardens can act as a learning resource for local schools which do not have

green areas. (1)

Involving the youth in community gardening allows their families to become informed

about their benefits. (1)

The community garden facilitates the interaction of age groups, which is a useful source

of knowledge. (2)

- 60

Just observing horticulture provides learning opportunities. (2)

There is enjoyment in observing and learning in this way. (2)

The community garden offers a learning experience through trail and error. (3)

Community gardening offers a very strong style of learning through practical

participation (3) (4)

Community gardening teaches children where food comes from. Prior to realising how

necessary it is, many children have an aversion to nature. (4)

- 61

Theme: Attitudes

Sub Theme: On Community Development:

Key Concepts:

Community garden participants are of a wide range of ages and circumstances. (1) (2)

There is a regular turnover of community garden participants. (1)

Community gardening allows participants to meet with people they would not otherwise

socialise with. (1)

Not many of the community garden’s participants actually live within the community.

(1)

A location is very important in creating community participation. (1)

The involvement of the local community, and community groups, has occurred very

slowly. (1)

Most participants already have gardens. (2)

A significant number of participants are from the immediate vicinity of the community

garden. (2) (3)

The community garden project created the residents’ association. (2) (4)

- 62

The community garden project has created strong links with South Dublin County

Council Environmental Section, Parks Section, also the Kimmage, Walkinstown,

Crumlin, Drimnagh Partnership. (2)

The support of multiple community social structures has not been relevant thus far.

(1) (2) (4)

While it is now successful, initially there was little interest in gardening. (2)

People travelled from all across the city to be involved in the original Dolphins Barn

Community garden, as it was the only available community garden in Dublin. (3)

The gardeners were evicted from Dolphins Barn Community Garden because of a desire

for development. (3)

Lack of free time is an impediment for volunteers. (3)

There is less community participation in the Finglas Community Garden Project than at

other sites such as Sitric Road, possible due to the Demographics of Finglas, and it

being a more deprived area. (3)

The Finglas Community Garden Project is run by a small group of environmentalists, in

an egalitarian way, with no formal structures. (3)

- 63

An absence of support from different community social structures is not a reason to

prevent engaging in a community gardening project. Without engaging in such projects

people are missing out on an educational opportunity. (4)

The social contribution in building and supporting communities is probably more

important than the nutritional aspect of growing your own food. (4)

The community garden has evolved over time and expanded into skill sharing and

workshops. (4)

Previously the site was attracting anti social behaviour, but this has not been the case

since the community garden was initiated. (4)

Any bad experiences have been outweighed by the good experiences. (4)

A community garden is a very flexible entity. (4)

Community gardening participation provides an opportunity to increase the respect of

younger people for their community. (5)

The aims of the new Shanganagh community garden are to get people out and about and

gardening with community involvement, to share skills and knowledge, and to get

people out of isolation. (5)

- 64

Theme: Attitudes

Sub Theme: On Opposition to Community Gardening

Key Concepts:

Resistance can come from site neighbours, thinking that neutral green space is being

taken away by others. (1)

Businesses have felt threatened by the community gardening, believing that it will

encourage anti social behaviour, and scare away clients. (1)

The lack of precedence for community gardening projects in Dublin has meant few

positive examples, and a consequent fear of the unknown, in relation to landowner

perceptions. (1)

Control of land, and rights of access, are a major determinant in allowing community

gardening upon private land. (1)

Activities such as tree planting are perceived as claims for permanent site usage or

occupancy. (1)

An objection was that not everybody would benefit by having a community garden and

allotments in Greenhills. (2)

There has been no specific element of society objecting to the community garden.

(2) (5)

- 65

There was opposition to the Dolphins Barn Community Garden because it was not

official. (3)

There was opposition to the Dolphins Barn Community Garden because of the site’s

previous social problems. (3)

An unwillingness to engage with community gardening may come from a social stigma

attaching it to poverty. (4)

The detachment of urban society from nature leads many to view gardening as dirty,

and something to be avoided. (4)

- 66

Theme: Attitudes

Sub Theme: On Quality of Life:

Key Concepts:

The community garden provides the only gardening experience for some participants

who have no garden at home. (1)

It is healthy to have a public physical space where people can interact. (1)

The management of this site through community gardening has prevented littering.

Because litter is not left to lie, the site is not perceived as a place at which it is OK to

drop litter. (1)

Before the community gardening project the dump impacted on the quality of life of

residents next to it by being an eyesore, a dump, and by being rat infested. (2)

Because people now work in the garden, the laneways are not used for burglary and

crime. (2)

Residents now use the garden as a recreation area to eat and socialise together. (2)

If young people and older people are mixing together, then they are more likely to

respect one another. (2)

It’s good for people to take some control over their own food supply. (3)

- 67

It is good to be empowered to contribute towards positive initiatives like lowering your

carbon emissions. (3)

Community gardening is hugely therapeutic for all people, and especially those who

have a mental or physical disability, or who are older. (3) (4) (5)

Community Gardens contribute to quality of life by getting people out and about and

gardening with community involvement, by sharing skills and knowledge, and by

getting people out of isolation. (5)

- 68

Theme: Policy and Practice

Sub Theme: On Community gardening:

Key Concepts:

Community centres should include a community garden, so that every community

group can have access to a participant gardening amenity. (1)

Community gardens can be promoted by local authorities through:

1. Making more land available.

2. Encouraging people to participate in community gardens

3. Providing some expertise on how to set things up. (1)

Having a local authority allotment /community garden officer would help by providing

a single person for coordinating grants, access to land, and education, as well as being a

statement of intent. (1) (5)

Local authorities should consider that community garden participants are volunteering

their limited free time, and that proposals for permission, funding, insurance, etc, are a

large administrative burden. (1)

South Dublin Council would charge commercial rates for supplying water to the

community garden. (2)

South Dublin Council cooperated in setting up the project. (2)

- 69

The local authority was aware that the community garden project could save them

money. (2)

Successful community gardens are community led, but with backing from the local

authority. (2) (4)

Both the “An Taisce Green Communities Programme”, and the “Safe Food Initiative”

(multi agency), are contributing practically to community gardening success. (3)

Communication between government and local authority departments has been

inadequate in the past, and has led to the failure of gardening projects. (4)

There is a new interest within local authorities towards providing land for community

groups, and negotiating with them. (4)

The Estate Management Forum structure has supported community garden projects, and

coordinated Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council’s response towards these. (5)

- 70


Sub Theme: On Planning:

Key Concepts:

There is a lack of visibility provided to the public on the availability and location of

public land. (1)

Fencing and site security would be issues that would concern people when making use

of unused land for community gardening. (2)

To engage with the planning of site specific, and project based activities, is more

effective than discussion, because you then have tangible proof of success. (4)

There was no awareness of the “sustainable residential development in urban areas –

guidelines for planning authorities document (2008)”, requiring the provision of

allotments and community gardens as a qualitative standard. (4)

There was awareness of the “sustainable residential development in urban areas –


allotments and community gardens as a qualitative standard. (5)

The “sustainable residential development in urban areas – guidelines for planning

authorities document (2008) depends upon the public being educated as to its existence

in order for it to be effective. (4)

- 71

Including community gardening within the county plan would aid community gardening

projects by giving the activity a seal of approval within official structures. (2) (3) (4) (5)

- 72


Sub Theme: On Resource Management:

Key Concepts:

While there is an opportunity for the reuse of unwanted Parks Department plants, there

are likely to be administrative issues encountered. (1) (4)

Individuals within Dublin City Council have been supportive in acquiring grants for the

community garden project. (1)

It takes very little money to set up such a community garden! (1)

It would help community garden projects if local authorities could facilitate or support

the provision of public liability insurance. (1)

South Dublin County Council provide awards to community projects such as

Clondalkin Addiction Support Programme, for their community garden projects. (2)

South Dublin County Council Parks Department, and Environment Section, were both

enthusiastic about the project and communicated with each other in relation to the

ongoing maintenance costs of what was a derelict site. (2)

Appling for grants and local authority support and recognition is quite formal, and could

lead to a loss of autonomy, which can be off putting. (3)

- 73

Introducing an allotment officer would be of most help in finding a location for a

community garden. (3)

Increasing allotment capacity could lead to less community garden volunteers. (3)

There maybe advantages in a participant design of parks, and their subsequent

ownership by local residents, in terms of them being maintained by these local

residents. (4)

There is a role for local authorities in providing resources to get community garden

projects started. (5)

The existence and continuity of a garden initiative is not compromised by local

authority funding. (5)

- 74


Sub Theme: On Agenda 21:

Key Concepts:

The linkage was made by the Dublin City Council Local Agenda 21 worker to the

Dublin City Council Biodiversity Officer. (1)

The Local Agenda 21 Office recently provided a grant for the project. (1) (2)

There is local authority awareness of the environmental educational potential of

community gardens, the provision of which is an Agenda 21 requirement. (1) (2)

The Community Garden representative has no awareness of Local Agenda 21. (3) (5)

The Community Garden is aware of the Local Agenda 21 Office, and has applied to its

grant scheme. (1) (2) (4)

Agenda 21 is an under utilised resource in Dublin, in comparison to other European

cities. (4)

The Agenda 21 requirement to provide environmental education to all groups and ages

is facilitated informally by the different community gardening projects. (1) (4)

- 75

Theme: Wider Issues

Sub Theme: On issues that encourage or prevent participation in Community

Gardening:

Key Concepts:

The time commitment is a limiting factor on participation in community gardening.

(1) (3)

Becoming more sustainable and being provided with directions towards this are reasons

for people participating in community gardening, as many participants are

environmentalists with an interest in sustainability. (1) (3)

Consequently it might be hard to get involved if you are not an environmentalist, or

have prior organic gardening knowledge. (3)

A climate of development has previously prevented land from being used for

community gardening. (1)

Theft and vandalism would deter people from community gardens on unfenced ground.

(1) (2)

Historically theft has been a problem with urban gardening in Dublin, sometimes on a

commercial scale. (2)

By including young people in the garden they are less likely to vandalise it. (2)

- 76

The Greenhills Community Garden and Allotment project allows different levels of

involvement by allowing different numbers of people on different sized plots. (2)

The Greenhills Community Garden and Allotment project operates an environmentally

friendly policy of not using weed killer, and recycling water. (2)

Greater inclusivity in community gardening projects can be achieved through free

advertising. (2)

The inclusivity of people with disabilities can be achieved through the use of raised

beds. (2)

Site accessibility can be an issue in attracting volunteers, and achieving inclusivity (3)

(4)

It is a difficult process identifying owners, and then getting permission to work on

private unused land, due to fears over squatters’ rights. (3) (4)

Lack of tenure is the biggest problem facing community gardening in Dublin. (3)

Tenure is very important for participants because it takes a few years in away to get a

good garden growing, and much effort on the part of volunteers. (3)

The majority of the Sitric Road Community Composting Garden participants are

female. (4)

- 77

It is important for a community garden to be visible within the community. (4)

A stigma of not having knowledge of horticulture may prevent some people from

becoming involved in community gardening. (4)

A lack of prior experience, or exposure to community gardening, may result in there

being less demand for community gardens, in comparison to the potential requirement

for them. (4)

A fear of responsibility may prevent more people from initiating community gardening

projects upon unused land. (4)

Public Liability Insurance is necessary for the community Garden (2) (5)

Public Liability insurance has not been an issue thus far for the Community Garden.

(1) (3) (4)

Potentially growing your own food could be seen as desirable for people on a limited

income, or as a stigma that is associated with poverty. (4)

- 78

Theme: Wider Issues

Sub Theme: On Issues that contribute to success or failure:

Key Concepts:

Local Authority and Local Agenda 21 funding can provide the missing resources to

allow the expansion or start up of a community gardening project. (1)

For community gardening success, responsibility has to lie with the participants’,

otherwise enthusiasm dissipates with the idea that someone else is managing the project.

(1) (4)

An essential thing for a community garden to succeed is that more than one or two

individuals must take responsibility for the project. (1)

Acknowledgement, by a reward from South Dublin County Council, benefited the

whole community. (2)

The Greenhills Community Garden Project had to be done “properly” because there

were people ready to exploit any mistakes made in order to thwart the community

gardening project. (2)

Doing things “properly” meant a 3 year delay in order to resolve all legal issues. (2)

If the children are involved with the garden they won’t vandalise it. (2) (5)

- 79

Assistance from the County Council in providing site clearance and fencing was vital

for the projects success. (2)

Financial, practical, and statements of support, from other community structures and

institutions can also aid community gardening projects. (2)

The inclusion of existing community social structures is important to replace key people

if they move away. (3) (5)

Recruiting volunteers and advertising the existence and benefit of a community garden

is a full time job. (3)

Security of tenure is needed for project survival. (3)

Public land offer’s greater security of tenure, than private land, but it can place

restrictions on site access, and activities. (3)

Locating a community garden close to the homes of participants is important for

security reasons. (3)

The composting element of a community garden must be adequately managed. (4)

The need for public liability insurance, and the necessary administration associated with

local authority funding and support are a large burden for community garden projects.

(4)

- 80

Theme: Recommendations


Key Concepts:

There is a potential for greater recycling of Parks Department plants. This could be

achieved by simply providing the public with notice of when the re-bedding of parks

and gardens will occur. (1) (5)

Unwanted Parks Department plants and bulbs could be given away at local recycle

centres rather than composted. (2)

Unwanted Parks Department plants and bulbs could be saved and given away, or sold,

at the annual bedding plant sales that Dublin City Council organises in different

communities. (3)

Unwanted Parks Department plants and bulbs could be saved and delivered to

community centres and schools, for those organisations to distribute, or reuse. (5)

Collaboration between local authority parks departments and community gardeners

could see a “Pareto improvement”, whereby some parks department tasks are completed

by community gardeners in exchange for the unwanted materials they collect. (4)

Access to Parks Department surplus resources should be limited to not for profit

individuals, or organisations like community gardens, to avoid these resources being

resold for profit. (1)

- 81

It is helpful for community gardening initiatives if local authority funding is provided at

the outset so as to get the momentum going. (1)

Greater linkages between local authority, government, and NGO projects could

potentially save money and yield greater results. (1)

The most successful use of resources and funding would be to support existing projects

as then there are interested persons already involved, and the project has proved its

staying power. (3) (4)

Local authorities could do more to promote community garden projects by having

posters at their civic offices, or by promoting them on their websites. (3)

Employing a local authority horticulturalist could aid community garden initiatives. (3)

Local authority assistance with community garden public relations, administration, and

maintenance of a community garden website would be of great help, as they are a huge

drain on the time and resources of volunteers. (4)

Greater use could be made of the educational potential of community gardens within the

formal curriculum of schools and colleges. (4)

Payment of a nominal fee towards the gardens upkeep may lead to people then treating

it with more respect, and carrying through with their commitments, because they have

had to pay their yearly fees. (5)

- 82


Sub Theme: On Land Management:

Key Concepts:

The legal system creates a concern that when persons are working land for a certain

period of time, they may then have some right to that land. Because of this the

agreement of an annual break in the usage of that land may provide alleviation of any

reluctance by landowners, towards community gardening upon unused land. (1) (2)

Money can be raised for the garden by renting out plots at a nominal yearly fee. (2)

There is a potential for community gardening upon the landscaped private land within

apartment developments. Greater security of tenure is possible as the land has already

been developed. (3)

Local authorities should consider purchasing private land that is being utilised by a

community gardening project, if that land is unused and has not previously been

scheduled for development. (3)

Any position in local authorities for an allotment officer should carry a much wider

remit than just allotments. (4)

The local authorities, or government authorities, could provide a set of rules and

regulations to facilitate community gardening upon unused land, while protecting the

ownership of that private land. (2) (4)

- 83

There maybe health and safety, and insurance issues associated with allowing

community gardening on private unused land. (5)

- 84

4.2.2 Local Authority Interviews.

(Interviews 6 to 11)

Theme: Attitudes

Sub Theme: On the Economic value of Community Gardening

Key Concepts:

There is no direct experience within the local authority of cost savings associated with

community gardening. (6) (9) (10)

The local authority does engage in redeveloping problem sites, reclaiming them for

community usage, but it takes significant funding. (7)

Community gardens would be a cost to the local authority, because the derelict land at

the moment costs nothing to maintain. (8)

Any financial benefit would only be realised in the longer term. (8)

Community gardens are too small to offer the management of a significant area of land.

(9)

A partnership model with the local community, utilising volunteers to manage amenities

like community gardens may facilitate amenities that could not be wholly funded by the

local authority. (10)

- 85

Community gardens provide the potential of turning costly negative space into

something of potential value. (11)

- 86

Theme: Attitudes

Sub Theme: On Environmental Education:

Key Concepts:

The education that people get from community gardening, about environmental issues is

quite positive. (6) (10)

The local authority supports the An Taisce Green Schools Initiative. (6) (7)

The local authority does not have formal environmental education programmes within

the wider community outside schools. (6)

The local authority has an environmental education programme. (10) (11)

Involving the youth in community gardening allows their families to become informed

about their benefits. (7)

The education potential of a community gardening project is still significant, even if it is

not permanent. (8)

Developing a community gardening project as an educational resource could lead to the

possibility of funding. (8)

Community gardens can act as a learning resource for local schools which do not have

green areas. (8)

- 87

Local authority allotments reserve plots for schools as an educational resource. (9)

Getting people thinking about their relationship to the living World, through community

gardening, is a good thing. (10)

It is necessary for people to be involved with nature through activities like community

gardening so that they perceive nature as somehow part of the way they live their lives,

and therefore of value. (10)

- 88

Theme: Attitudes

Sub Theme: On Community Development:

Key Concepts:

Socially middle class people have access to gardens and exposure to gardening. (6)

Community gardens can help change social attitudes towards participants. (6)

Getting the backing of community groups and residents associations is important.

(6) (9)

Community gardening projects may need fostering where garden experience, and

community cohesion are absent. (6)

The council is committed to developing community facilities that develop community.

(6) (10) (11)

A community gardening project needs natural leaders from the community. (7) (9)

Community gardening projects are welcomed by residents because they can bring

increased security. (7)

Community gardening creates great social interaction with people. (7) (9) (11)

Security of tenure is very important for people to participate in a community gardening

project. (8)

- 89

Community gardens need to be located within the community, and where possible tied

to an investment of time and money such as a lease, to make the link to their value. (8)

Community amenities such as community gardens require local authorities to integrate

their work across departments, and look at the provision of local authority services in an

integrated way. (10)

Community food growing and gardening is a tool to bring communities together. (11)

I think there is scope for community gardening within apartment blocks. (11)

People are very slow to engage on collaborative community gardens. (11)

The local authority will not support a project unless there is buy in from the community,

as this is vital for success. (11)

- 90

Theme: Attitudes

Sub Theme: On Opposition to Community Gardening

Key Concepts:

Some residents oppose community gardens, because they want to keep things the way

they are, there maybe an aversion to unknown or untried initiatives. (6) (8) (10)

There are sometimes fears of antisocial behaviour and vandalism in relation to

community gardens. Residents may fear that they will attract such behaviour as well as

more positive activities. (6) (9)

Land owners sometimes have concerns about security and public liability issues. (6)

If a community garden project does not have the backing of the local residents

association then the resistance to it will be quite substantial. (8)

If people have had a bad experience of a project at a location then they are afraid of

everything else that maybe proposed. (9)

People cannot be expected to engage with a community gardening project if there are

other more serious outstanding issues affecting their quality of life. (9)

Some residents may dislike amenities in close proximity to their homes, even if they

agree with the concept. (10) (11)

- 91

Theme: Attitudes

Sub Theme: On Quality of Life:

Key Concepts:

The dissemination of information, about community gardening’s quality of life

contribution, does not always occur amongst local authority departments. (6) (10)

There is an appreciation of the quality of life contribution of community gardening

within society, but it is still developing. (9)

Community gardens offer a mechanism for utilising the skills of people in an inclusive

manner. (7)

Community gardening provides inclusivity for elderly and disabled people. (7) (9)

Community gardening is a pastime offering variety. (7)

Community gardening initiatives that only last 2 or 3 years are still an important

contribution to the quality of life of participants and residents. (8)

The community garden provides the only gardening experience for some participants

who have no garden at home. (8)

Community gardens build community cooperation and cohesion. (9) (11)

- 92


Sub Theme: On Community gardening:

Key Concepts:

Community gardens are a new initiative that is not fully appreciated within society. (10)

The lack of working community garden examples can be a deterrent to local authority

involvement. (10)

A problem in local authorities is of their being no proper process for correct sensible

decisions towards community garden projects. (6)

It can be difficult to appreciate if support or objection towards community gardening is

genuine. (8) (10)

It is easier politically to utilise unused land for community gardening, as it is then less

contentious than displacing a current land use or activity. (6) (8)

Support for community gardening comes less from local authority departments, and

more from individuals within local authority. (6) (7)

The parks department are quite willing to talk to people about using land for community

gardening. (6) (8)

Social issues such as theft and vandalism would be issues that would make the local

authority department reticent to support community garden projects. (8)

- 93

Community gardens are often not practical in Ireland due to individualism. (8) (10) (11)

There is a stronger demand from the public for allotments than there is for community

gardens. (9) (10)

An allotment/community gardening officer is needed as this role is currently conducted

on the initiative of individuals within the local authority, and not as an official

requirement. (6)

When green space is not maintained properly it leads to allot of antisocial behaviour. (7)

Communication and collaboration between local authority departments could be

improved when dealing with community gardening initiatives. (8) (10) (11)

- 94


Sub Theme: On Planning:

Key Concepts:

Including community gardening within the county plan would aid community gardening

projects by giving the activity a seal of approval within official structures. (6) (8) (9)

(10) (11)

Including community gardening within the county plan, while aiding community

gardening projects, does not necessarily put any onus on developers to provide them

within a development. (9) (11)

Community gardening will feature in the next county development plan. (8) (9)

The issue of denying access to land, and use of that land, because of future planning

proposals adversely affects community projects such as community gardening. (6)

There was no awareness of the “sustainable residential development in urban areas –


allotments and community gardens as a qualitative standard. (6) (8)

There was awareness of the “sustainable residential development in urban areas –


allotments and community gardens as a qualitative standard. (9) (10) (11)

- 95


authorities document (2008) depends upon the local authority planning department

engaging with it in order for it to be effective. (6) (10)


authorities document (2008)”, is a planning guide for future developments only. (8)

Community gardens would need to become local authority service indicators, in order to

be seriously implemented as a community amenity by local authorities. (11)

There are concerns about the effectiveness of the “sustainable residential development

in urban areas – guidelines for planning authorities document (2008)”. (9) (10) (11)

Providing community gardens as a design principle is ineffective because of the absence

of community in new developments. (11)

The interest has to be within the community, the capacity has to be within the

community, the leadership has to be within the community, because there is no capacity

within the local authority to manage community gardens on behalf of residents. (11)

Where you are going to a model of increased densities, the public provision of green

space amenities then becomes much more important, because people don’t have these

private spaces. (10)

Models of public gardening space, other than allotments, are needed for inclusivity and

financial reasons. (10)

- 96

The provision of green infrastructure such as community gardens was until relatively

recently eclipsed by development (9) (10)

- 97



Key Concepts:

It is possible to reuse unwanted Parks Department plants and materials, you just have to

set up the mechanism to do it. (6) (8)

The Parks Department plants and materials that are disposed of are not of a significant

quantity to merit setting up a mechanism to redistribute them into the community. (9)

(10) (11)

If residents have an issue that needs action or resources from a local authority

department, then they have a much stronger voice when they are a committee rather

than an individual. (7)

There are no draw backs in acquiring funding and patronage from local authorities for

community gardening projects. (7)

Community garden projects require resources to provide services such as water,

electricity, a shed, fencing or security. (7)

There is a latent need for community gardens. (8) (10)

Local authorities favour supporting community garden initiatives that are sited on

public land, rather than private land. (9) (10) (11)

- 98

The local authority provides funds for public liability insurance. (9) (11)

The local authority does not provide funds for public liability insurance. (7)

The local authority should provide funds for public liability insurance (8)

Until more elemental problems such as deficient housing stock are fixed, then residents

will not prioritise community gardens. (9)

The commitment of the local community can be an issue with local authority led

community garden initiatives, but there is little that can be done to predict this. (6) (7)

Any group wanting to set up a community garden must be able to take on the project

and run it in the longer term. (11)

The local authority recommend’s that all community garden groups have public liability

insurance. (7)

The local authority will not support community garden initiatives if they do not have

public liability insurance. (9) (11)

The local authority will not support community garden initiatives if they are not

constituted. (9) (11)

The local authority will not support community garden initiatives if they do not have the

complete support of the local residents. (9) (11)

- 99

Community gardens are more inclusive, and less exclusive than allotments. (10)

The model whereby the local authority provides green infrastructure as a service will

probably have to be replaced by a partnership model, which is provided by community

gardening. (10)

There are industrial relations issues to be considered when working with community

volunteers to manage green infrastructure (8) (10)

Funding should be used as a support mechanism rather than an incentive. (11)

Community initiatives like community gardening need the support of the local authority

and this only happens because people are paid to do it. (11)

- 100


Sub Theme: On Agenda 21:

Key Concepts:

There is awareness of Local Agenda 21, and its activity within the local authority in

supporting projects. (6) (9) (11)

Local Agenda 21 is of low profile within the local authority. (6) (10)

Local Agenda 21 has a low profile nationally. (9)

The local authority meets the Agenda 21 requirement to make environmental education

available to all groups and ages by supporting An Taisce Green Schools Initiative.

(6) (7) (11)

There are no local authority environmental education programmes outside formal school

education. (6) (7)

Currently support for community gardens is provided by individuals within local

authority departments, rather than through departmental policy. (6) (7)

There is no awareness of Local Agenda 21. (7) (8)

Examples of Local Agenda 21 funding providing both environmental education for

communities, and improving the quality of life in those communities exist. (9) (11)

- 101

The local authority has conducted a local Agenda 21 Plan. (9) (11)

The local authority has a Local Agenda 21 advisory committee (9) (11)

Local Agenda 21 needs to be a dedicated position. (10)

Local Agenda 21 suffers because its role is not focussed enough. (10)

Local Agenda 21 suffers because it is not a senior enough position to effect change. (10)

National government support and guidance on Local Agenda 21 has been successful in

raising the profile of the issues it seeks to address, such as sustainable development, and

environmental education. (10)

- 102

Theme: Wider Issues

Sub Theme: On Issues that encourage or prevent participation in Community

Gardening:

Key Concepts:

Local authorities could aid community garden initiatives that are starting up by

introducing them to existing projects, and allowing visits to other gardens, so that they

can learn. (6)

Old age, mobility and health issues could act as a barrier to community gardening

participation. (7)

Theft and vandalism act to deter participation in community gardening. (7) (8) (11)

Public liability insurance can deter volunteer groups. (11)

Security of tenure is necessary for people to invest time and consideration on

community gardens. (8)

Historically cheap food prices acted to curtail urban food growing in allotments. (8)

A cultural attitude associating allotment growing with poverty may deter some people

from getting involved in both allotments and community gardens. (8)

Community gardens and allotments are liable to be less successful in low income

deprived areas, because they are eclipsed by other social issues. (8)

- 103

There is a requirement for greater promotion of the benefits that community gardening

provides, and the opportunities that are available to the public. (8)

Community gardens are often not practical in Ireland due to individualism. (8) (11)

Communities need to become established before community gardens become viable. (9)

The community necessary for initiating community projects like a community garden is

less likely to develop when parents are going to work every day, and driving in and out

of sprawling estates. (9)

The awareness of community gardens is very strong amongst the elected members,

which suggest there is a desire for them amongst the wider public. (9)

There is a tension of conflicting public interests associated with community gardening,

whereby people desiring a public gardening experience are opposed by those who want

to keep the status quo. (10)

An allotment officer would act to encourage community gardening both externally and

within the local authority. They could achieve quite an amount because they would be

focused on a particular issue. (10)

An allotment officer would not assist community gardens. (11)

- 104

Theme: Wider Issues

Sub Theme: On Issues that contribute to success or failure:

Key Concepts:

Local authority led community gardening initiatives sometimes fail due to a lack of

leadership within the community (6) (9) (11)

Local authority funding is sometimes required to get a community gardening project

going. (6)

Community gardening projects should be community led, but it is sometimes necessary

for the local authority to take the lead if there is not adequate community leadership.

(6) (7)

The key thing is that the community must want it, and must be prepared to take

responsibility for the community garden. (10)

Community gardens should start small and not take on too much work at once by being

over ambitious. (7)

Site security is considered important for successful community garden projects. (7) (9)

The lack of replacement of enthusiastic volunteers can lead to a project folding. (8) (11)

If you tie a community garden into allotments, where people have invested in a lease,

then you increase the strength and success of that community garden. (8)

- 105

Public liability insurance allows the community gardening project to expand within the

community, and bring in other groups and social structures. (8)

Community gardens can suffer through lack of volunteers, because people are time

poor. (9)

Community gardens are most successful in middle class areas. (8) (11)

Investing a community garden project with a constitution and a committee means that

leadership can be replaced thus providing greater project longevity. (11)

- 106



Key Concepts:

Local authority awareness of the benefit of community gardening can be provided by in

house workshops for planners, parks department, and community section, on

community gardening. (6)

Setting up a seed bank or cooperative, could allow community gardens to save valuable

resources and funding. (6)

The Parks Department could notify the public when they are going to dig up flower

beds and allow them to take some of the plants being disposed of. (7)

Workshops for community gardens and interested gardeners can allow resources to be

exchanged, as well as tips and information. (6)

The setting up or a partnership model between local parks, and community gardeners.

This would share resources and labour. (8)

Local government property taxation would mean that every house would contribute

something to the coffers of the local authority., and the services it provides. This could

be used to fund community projects and Local Agenda 21 goals. (10)

Any community gardening project should start small and then build up according to the

support forthcoming from the community. (11)

- 107


Sub Theme: On Land Management:

Key Concepts:

Community garden initiatives could be increased by educating local groups that it is an

option for them and there is public land available. (7)

Local authorities could introduce compulsory leases on unused land in city centres, for

the use of community gardening, or other community purposes while it is lying

undeveloped. (8)

Private land owners will not want to lease their land to community gardens, because of

insurance implications, and because it is politically bad press for them if they have to

close down the garden in future years. (9)

Local authorities will not want to intercede with contracts facilitating the leasing of

private land for community gardens, because they are already involved in negotiations

around potential planning permissions and land use, with such landowners. (11)

- 108

Chapter 5 – Discussion.

5.0 Introduction.

This chapter explores and analyses the findings of the results. The research approach

itself is discussed, and the reasoning as to why these particular methodologies were

employed. After discussing the quantitative, and qualitative research techniques, the

analysis of their results is then discussed. The sequence of this discussion chapter

follows the following format:

Survey Approach

Survey Analysis

Semi Structured Interview Approach

Semi Structured Interview Analysis

Finally the findings are discussed in detail with the information that supports and

contradicts them from the existing literature. The findings of both the public survey, and

the semi structured interviews, are discussed together, but are split up into the 4

constituent objective topics of:

(1) Attitudes,

(2) Policy and Practice,

(3) Wider issues,

(4) Recommendations.

- 109


5.1.1 Survey Approach.

This survey concerned the public’s attitude towards community gardening within their

neighbourhood. It was framed within the concept of “Quality of Life”, and how a

community garden might contribute to that “Quality of Life”. Community gardens are a

recent phenomena in Dublin, rather than an established activity like allotment holdings,

which have a significant history and their own presence within the awareness of the

wider public. Consequently most people will have no physical experience of community

gardening, and so their opinions on it will be perceived from other means than by

practical involvement. By conducting this survey, within the specific neighbourhood of

Phibsborough, North Central Dublin, it is hoped to be better able to engage with the

public’s true attitudes towards being in close proximity to a community garden. This is

because a community gardening project was initiated in March 2009, and has continued

to run throughout the Summer and Autumn of 2009, upon public land within this

neighbourhood of Phibsborough. Consequently the survey was targeted at residents

within immediate proximity of the garden, so as to engage those who could be directly

affected by the garden. Although not all respondents’ homes overlooked the garden, all

were close enough to be affected by concerns such as vandalism, or increased parking.

All respondents were also within easy walking distance of the garden if they wished to

participate, or make use of its composting facility. Because of this the target sample

group was too focussed geographically speaking, and small in number, to make use of

an existing sample frame. There were no up to date lists of those living in close

proximity to the community garden site, so it was necessary to make use of non

probability sampling methods. As the research of the survey is targeted at those people

- 110

living within immediate proximity to the garden, it was a non probability “purposive

sampling” technique that was used, rather than random sampling to survey a

representative cross section of the local community. It was not possible to randomly

survey people at the site of the garden, or elsewhere, as it was necessary to purposefully

screen out those who were not immediate residents. So those surveyed were “selected

with a specific purpose in mind”. (Denscombe, 2007, p15). Because of this the potential

pool of respondents was much reduced from that of a random sample, surveying a less

site specific topic. In total 43 survey questionnaires were completed between the 5th

August and the 30th September 2009, by a variety of different sample methods.

According to Denscombe the sample size for a small scale research project survey is

often between 30 and 250 respondents (Denscombe, 2007, p28). Consequently a sample

size of 43 respondents can be adequate in providing a quantitative view of public

attitude towards community gardening within their neighbourhood. However when

considering a smaller sample size such as this:

“Extra attention needs to be paid to the issue of how representative the sample is

and special caution is needed about the extent to which generalisations can be

made on the basis of the research findings.”

(Denscombe, 2007, p28).

In order to avoid the sample becoming strongly non-representational through bias, a

combination of different sampling methods were employed. The different sample

methods and their response rates are indicated below:

(1) An e-mailed survey to local residents.

(2) A postal survey to local residents.

- 111

(3) Community gardening participants.

(4) Local residents passing by the garden.

(5) Local Residents attending Great Western Square and District Residents Association

Summer Party.

Because the community gardening participants represent a valid segment of the

community, a sample of these people were surveyed. Out of a total pool of

approximately 20 volunteers, 6 community garden volunteers were approached to

complete the survey, all of whom did so.

An attempt was made to avoid double completion of surveys by individuals,

through questioning whether a respondent had filled out a survey previously, when

approaches were made at the Residents Association Summer Party, or to passers by, or

to garden participants. The postal survey and email questionnaire targeted different

households in the area surrounding the garden.

Overall 106 individual people or households were approached to complete a

survey. The completion of 43 survey questionnaires equates to an overall response rate

of 40.56%.

- 112

Plate 8: The Phibsborough Community Garden is where some of the local residents

were surveyed. Here a local resident who brought green waste to the composter can be

seen completing a survey. (Source: Robert Moss)

5.1.2 Survey Analysis.

5.1.2.1 Survey Analysis Demographics.

Question 9 within Part 2 of the questionnaire requests the personnel details of the

respondent, which includes their age group. The statistics for the demographics from

question 9, Part 2, of the survey can be seen in Figure 5, within Section 4.1 of the

Results Chapter. By comparing the age demographic of the sample group with that of

the surrounding population we can get an indication as to whether the sample group is

representative of the residents within this community. From Figures 6 and 7 below we

- 113

can see that there is a fair correlation between the age demographic of the survey

sample, and that of the Phibsborogh/Mountjoy area. Although the two demographic

charts do not share the same age classification partitions, they do both show a peak

stretching from people aged in their 20’s and through into middle age. Both show

attenuation in the numbers of the elderly and young. From this correlation we can state

that the survey sample closely approximates to the age range of that of the local area.

Figure 6: The age demographic of the people surveyed, who are residing in close

proximity to the community garden in Phibsborough.

- 114

Figure: 7: The age demographic of the Phibsborough/Mountjoy district of north central

Dublin. (Source: John Spain Associates, 2008)

The gender demographic of the survey sample is skewed towards females with almost

two thirds of respondents being female, at 62.79%. This is surprising as there was no

intentional discrimination in approaching residents on a gender basis. It may well be the

case that other sociological factors have led to a sample bias. For example the majority

of the people volunteering to help with the Phibsborough community garden are female,

and most of the people passing by who agreed to complete a survey questionnaire were

also female. It was also noticed by the author that at the Great Western Square and

District Residents Association Summer Party the majority of respondents were female,

often part of a couple. In this latter situation when couples were approached to complete

a questionnaire, it almost always resulted in the woman completing the questionnaire.

This gender imbalance in participation and contribution has been noticed at Shanganagh

Community Development Project, where Anne Traynor commented that there is a huge

need to develop a men’s community group, in the face of such a group’s absence.

(Traynor, Interview, 2009).

The majority of respondents were single with no children (41.86%), followed by

being couple’s with no children (23.26%). The overwhelming majority of respondents

- 115

were owner occupiers at 72.09%. This is likely to be an example of non purposive

sampling bias. Owner occupiers may well feel that they have more of a stake in the area

than rental occupiers. Consequently they may be more inclined to contribute not only to

completing a survey, but also to participation in the community garden, and the Great

Western Square and District Residents Association Summer Party at which many

surveys were gathered.

5.1.2.2 Survey Analysis on “Quality of Life”.

The “Quality of Life” response statistics for part 1 of the survey can be seen in Figure

3, within Section 4.1 of the Results Chapter. All respondents felt that Phibsborough was

a suitable place to live, with the overwhelming majority at 95.35% feeling safe living

there. A much smaller majority at 53.49% felt that the neighbourhood had improved

over the last 2-3 years.

In terms of quality of life issues, the primary concerns that detract from quality of life in

Phibsborough are perceived to be:

– Traffic 74.42% (32 respondents)

– Litter 67.44% (29 respondents)

While the least problematic quality of life concerns are perceived to be:

– Vandalism 18.60% (8 respondents)

– Neglected Land 23.26% (10 respondents)

- 116

In terms of quality of life issues, the primary contributors towards quality of life in

Phibsborough are perceived to be:

– Opportunities to Exercise 58.14% (25 respondents)

– Community Participation 48.84% (21 respondents)

While the least contribution towards quality of life concerns are perceived to be from:

– Leisure Facilities 16.28% (7 respondents)

– Integration of Non Nationals 37.21% (16 respondents)

While the majority of people felt that there is “enough public green space in

Phibsborough”, at 55.81 % (24 respondents), and an even greater majority felt that this

green space was adequately managed at 67.44 % (29 respondents), the majority of

people did not however “have confidence in local authority decisions affecting the area”

at 58.14 % (25 respondents).

5.1.2.3 Survey Analysis on the contribution of community gardening towards

“Quality of Life”.

The response statistics for part 2 of the survey, looking into the impact of community

gardening upon “Quality of Life”, can be seen in Figure 4, within Section 4.1 of the

Results Chapter. In terms of the quality of life contributions provided by community

gardening, the most positive contribution is perceived to come jointly in three areas:

– Environmental Education 93.02% (40 respondents)

- 117

– Community Development and Cooperation 93.02% (40 respondents)

– Improvement of the Area’s Appearance 93.02% (40

respondents)

The controversial issue of composting received a surprisingly high approval rate at

86.05% (37 respondents). This is surprising in light of a number of objections raised

over the summer to the introduction of a composting facility at the site of the

Phibsborough Community Garden. These objections involved claims that the

composting would attract vermin, attract vandalism, and would be unsightly. The

comments relating to the introduction of composting at the community garden can be

seen within Appendix 2. All comments are positive, but some are cautionary in that

composting needs to be managed.

An interesting revelation from the survey is that the activity which the largest

majority of people rank as important for a community garden is “social events and

garden parties”, at 79.07% (34 respondents), rather than “growing fruit and vegetables”

at 72.09% (31 respondents). It is though clearly still the case that the vast majority of

people think that “growing fruit and vegetables”, still ranks as being important.

Another interesting statistic is that the most useful feature in getting residents

involved with the garden would be “advice on planting and gardening” at 81.40% (35

respondents). This is considerably more than the 69.77% (30 respondents) who ranked

“security of land use” as being important to get residents involved. However there is an

anomalously high number of respondents who did not express a preference for this

option at 25.58% (11 respondents), suggesting that the phrasing “security of land use”

may not have been well understood.

Only a small majority of respondents at 58.14% (25 respondents) had their own

garden, but a larger majority were prepared to get involved with the community

- 118

gardening project at 67.44% (29 respondents). Finally a large majority felt that the

community garden should be run informally, at 62.79% (27 respondents), and an even

larger majority felt that the garden should be a shared area, rather than individual plots,

at 76.74% (33 respondents). This shows understanding and acceptance of the concept of

community gardening.

5.1.2.4 Further Survey Analysis.

It is useful to go beyond the response statistics of replies to individual questions, and to

look in more detail at how these responses relate to other factors. There are two areas

identified for further analysis that may reveal important trends in public attitudes. They

are presented below:

The relationship between questions (8) and (9), within Part 1 of the survey.

Question 8: Do you have confidence in Local Authority Decisions affecting the area?

Question 9: Are you involved in community groups?

The premise here is that it’s necessary for those in community groups to have

confidence in local authority decisions. This is particularly pertinent with community

gardening, where local authority cooperation with community groups is necessary for

land provision, and funding.

In order to see if there is more or less confidence in local authority decisions, by

respondents who are involved in community groups, it is necessary to take the

responses to question (9) and then apply question (8) separately to each of the response

groups (i.e. “Yes” or “No”). The results of this analysis can be seen below in Figure 8.

- 119

Figure 8: The application of Question 8, from Part 1 of the survey, to the response

categories of Question 9, from Part 1 of the survey. This provides a view of variation on

confidence in local authority decision making, according to whether respondents are

involved in community groups. The row highlighted in pink displays the different

response combination percentages. From left to right they reveal the percentage of

respondents that are;

“Involved in community groups, and having confidence in decision making”,

“Involved in community groups, and not having confidence in decision making”,

“Involved in community groups, and no response indicated towards decision making”

“Not involved in community groups, and having confidence in decision making”,

“Not involved in community groups, and not having confidence in decision making”

“Not involved in community groups, and no response indicated towards decision

making”

- 120

Beneath the different response combination percentages, which are highlighted in pink,

are the equivalent percentage responses for all 43 survey participants towards

Question 8, highlighted in tan, to aid comparison.

The relationship between questions (4) and (5), within Part 2 of the survey.

Question 4: Does your house have a garden?

Question 5: Would you be prepared to be involved with a community garden?

The premise here is that people who do not have a garden maybe more likely to

volunteer their time towards the community garden, because they have no private

gardening experience. Or alternatively they may be inclined against volunteering due to

lack of gardening experience.

In order to see if there is more, or less, enthusiasm for community gardening, by

respondents without access to their own garden, it is necessary to take the responses to

question (4) and then apply question (5) separately to each of the response groups (i.e.

“Yes” or “No”). The results of this analysis can be seen below in Figure 9.

- 121

Figure 9: The application of Question 5, from Part 2 of the survey, to the response

categories of Question 4, from Part 2 of the survey. This provides a view of variation on

willingness to volunteer for community gardening, according to whether respondents

have their own garden. The row highlighted in pink displays the different response

combination percentages. From left to right they reveal the percentage of respondents

that;

“Live in a house with a garden, and would volunteer”,

“Live in a house with a garden, and would not volunteer”,

“Live in a house with a garden, but no response indicated towards volunteering”

“Live in a house without a garden, and would volunteer”,

“Live in a house without a garden, and would not volunteer”

“Live in a house without a garden, but no response indicated towards volunteering”

Beneath the different response combination percentages, highlighted in pink, are the

equivalent percentage responses for all 43 survey participants towards Question 5,

highlighted in tan, to aid comparison.

- 122

The findings drawn from these quality of life response statistics are discussed further

within the Findings, Section, 5.3, of this chapter.

5.1.2.5 Analysis of Survey Issues.

There are a number of weaknesses associated with this survey of public attitude towards

community gardening. A number of them are structural features of the survey, and the

subject. Others are minor details of questioning that could be improved with hindsight.

All are significant, and should be weighed against the findings of this survey. They are

listed below in order of importance.

(1) The small size of the survey sample has already been covered in Section

5.1.1, and may serve to over accentuate trends, or mask them.

(2) This is a site specific survey and every neighbourhood has its own dynamics and

concerns. Not all of the findings from the survey can be extrapolated across Dublin with

certainty.

(3) Of necessity the contribution of community gardening towards “Quality of Life”

questions, in Part 2 of the survey features questions about the positive nature of

community gardening. This is because it was not acceptable to the Phibsborough

Community Garden Project to raise concerns about community gardening, within the

community upon whose goodwill it was dependent. To some extent this is countered by

the questioning on problem issues associated with “Quality of Life” within Part 1 of the

survey. However there is still the possibility that a number of respondents agreed that

community gardening provides the positive contributions listed, simply because positive

- 123

contributions by community gardening were being listed, and not negative ones. For

example are people responding positively for “leisure and fun”, within Question 1(f) of

Part 2, because they really believe that community gardening will provide “leisure and

fun”, or instead is it because they approve of “leisure and fun”, which has been listed?

Consequently it is possible that some “no responses” could actually represent negative

opinion that is not being engaged and captured. Additionally the small differences in the

“yes” response rates may be of added significance. So that while “Gardening

events/Competitions” scores a significantly high approval rating at 62.79% (27

respondents), within question 3(a) of Part 2, it may actually rank significantly lower on

peoples’ priorities than “Social events like garden parties” at 79.07% (34 respondents),

within question 3(d) of Part 2.

(4) The gender imbalance within the survey has already been covered in Section 5.1.2.1.

(5) The survey does not question whether people have previous experience of, or even

an understanding of community gardening, although where necessary this was

explained.

(6) Within the respondent details, Question 9, Part 2, the resident details are not

sufficient. An entry of “Dependant/Family Home” needs to be included with the choices

of “Owner Occupier”, and “Rental Occupier”.

(7) Within Part 1 of the survey there is a Large “no response” return on Questions 5(b)

and (7), both are at 20.93% (9 respondents). This may indicate sensitivity to the

question, and confusion respectively

- 124

(8) Question 10, Part 1, is too narrow in its response options. Once a week is the

maximum option provided for the use of parks and green spaces. However people may

use parks and green spaces more frequently than once a week.

5.2 Interviews.

5.2.1 Semi Structured Interview Approach.

The knowledge of the benefits, and issues relating to community gardening, that can

and do affect urban society in Dublin, are held primarily by a small number of

participants, and local authority staff. These benefits and issues are not common

knowledge because relatively few people have heard of community gardening, and far

fewer are involved with community gardening. Consequently there is no widely

understood lore relating to community gardening. This makes it impractical to ask

logical structured questions, surveying people’s differing experiences, as would be the

case with universal phenomena, such as retail prices, or transport usage. Instead of

surveying attitudes it is necessary to gather the dispersed experience and knowledge of

individuals, who are most relevant to the community gardening projects that exist across

Dublin. Consequently it is preferable that these individuals should be interviewed,

instead of surveyed. Having decided on a strategy of interviewing key persons relevant

to community gardening it was then required that some thought be given to the type of

interview that would yield the most insightful, as well as accurate data. Interviews can

range from being wholly structured, to being unstructured. In structured interviewing

the same series of questions that have a limited set of responses are asked. “There is

very little flexibility in the way questions are asked or answered in the structured

interview setting.”(Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p649). “The problem about this format is

- 125

that you, as the interviewer, decide what questions to ask – and you may not be asking

the important questions.” (Bell, 1999, p137).

At the other extreme to the structured interview is the unstructured interview, “in which

the shape is determined by individual respondents.” (Bell, 1999, p137). An obvious

problem with unstructured interviews is the potential loss of control over the subject of

discussion, and also difficulties that can arise in processing the huge amounts of data

that can be derived from these interviews.

“Freedom to allow the respondent to talk about what is of central significance to

him or her rather than to the interviewer is clearly important, but some loose

structure to ensure all topics which are considered crucial to the study are covered

does eliminate some of the problems of entirely unstructured interviews.”

(Bell, 1999, p138).

Consequently Semi structured interviews were used in preference to structured or

unstructured interviews, for gathering information from key persons. This is because it

was important that those being interviewed were able to expand upon their expertise and

experience, rather than being confined by very specific questions. This of course could

lead to a wide diversity in the information, or opinion, provided in response to what are

in some cases very open questions. In order to counter this divergence, the questions

fielded to all 11 interviewees came from the same total of 54 questions. These questions

were a mixture of policy, and practical questions in relation to community gardening.

The full list of questions can be seen within appendix 3, where any source material from

which the question was derived is also noted after the question. The questions are

sequenced within appendix 3 in the manner that they would normally be delivered

within an interview.

- 126

Although every effort was made to gather a response from each interviewee for each

question, it was not always pertinent to ask some questions during specific interviews.

This could be for a variety of reasons, including irrelevance of the question to a specific

interviewee’s experience, or the subject having already been covered in a previous

response. Generally the interview questions followed the same sequence for all

interviews, although there was some variance due to an interviewee’s response to a

question impinging upon another question topic. As part of the semi structured

interviews additional questions were asked to probe the interviewee for more detail, for

specific answers, or to expand and illuminate the area of interest being discussed.

Leading questions were avoided, although questions were often re-phrased or expanded

upon, when the interviewee requested a clarification, could not answer, or

misinterpreted a question. To aid the processing of response data the questions have all

been assigned a category type that equates to one of the following:

• Attitudes

• Policy and Practice

• Wider Issues

• Recommendations

The questions within Appendix 3 have all been assigned to one or more of these

categories.

Because of the complex nature of some of the questions it was decided to make

the questions available to the interviewees in advance of the interviews, so as to give the

respondents an opportunity to research answers if they choose to do so. All interviews

were taped on audio cassettes, with the interview then being transcribed on a computer.

- 127

All the interviews were of approximately 90-100 minutes in duration, and generally

took 3 days to transcribe. This conforms to Denscombe’s assertion that transcription of

interviews will take in the region of 10 hours for every hour of audio taped interview.

(Denscombe, 2007, p198). The interviewee was then e-mailed a copy of the interview

transcript so as to allow them the opportunity to check that nothing was written down

out of context, or that any details were in error.

The only interview exceptions to the semi structured interview technique were

those interviews with South Circular Road Community Garden, and South Dublin

Council. Here the interviews were with multiple interviewees; three and five persons

respectively. While the interviews were approached in the same manner and with the

same questions as the other semi structured interviews, on these two occasions the

manner of the interview developed into a “Focus Group” or “Group Interview” method.

The author was happy to allow this style of interview to run it’s course, within the

topics of the pool of 54 questions, because they revealed interesting group dynamics,

and differences of opinion amongst the different workers at both the South Circular

Road Garden, and South Dublin Council. The emphasis of focus groups is on group

interaction, and such groups are able to pose their own questions and pursue non

dictated lines of enquiry. In both of the semi structured interviews that developed these

focus group traits, the questioning and discussion was within, and around the question

topics, often freely flowing from one question topic to another without the intercession

of the author.

In the interests of clarity the data from these focus group interviews are not

treated as being derived from a separate research technique to those of the other semi

structured interviews. The data, and the themes and categories derived from it, are

analysed and discussed with the other semi structured interviews. In this way

- 128

commonalities between the two focus group meetings and the other semi structured

interviews can be better compared and discussed.

5.2.2 Semi Structured Interview Analysis.

The thematic framework which has been used to analyse the raw data from the semi

structured interviews has already been detailed within the Section on Semi Structured

Interview Results, Section 4.2.

5.3 Findings.

5.3.1 Attitudes.

5.3.1.1 The Economic value of Community Gardening.

A report published in 2008, “The Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure”, by the

Natural Economy Northwest Programme, claimed that “Green Infrastructure investment

can provide environmental improvements in key locations within urban and semi-urban

locations, having significant benefits for housing and land values” (NENW, 2008, p22).

This is backed up by the comments of Kaeth Burt-O’Dea of Sitric Road Community

Compost Garden. “I have had lots of people saying to me that they are moving here

because there is such a great sense of community in this area. I am absolutely certain

that allot of that started with the garden.” (Burt-O’Dea, Interview, 2009b). There is

though a cautionary note to be made about the complexities of housing and land values,

by Seoidin O’Sullivan, of South Circular Road Community Garden. Relating about a

community garden project in Belfast that worked to clean up a problem site for illegal

dumping, she explained that rental prices were able to increase as a result of having this

- 129

beautiful amenity. “The Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure” report lists this as a

positive effect of green infrastructure, “Greener cities can increase visitors and spend in

city centre retail and leisure, improving rental values and increasing employment

opportunities”. (NENW, 2008, p22), However as O’Sullivan points out:

“It depends on who you are. For the landlord it is positive, but if you are renting it

is negative.”

(O’Sullivan et al, Interviewee (1), 2009)

In contrast to another claim made by “The economic benefits of Green Infrastructure”

report, that there can be “maintenance and management savings to landowners through

community ownership and involvement in greenspace” (NENW, 2008, pA42), the local

authority representatives interviewed did not feel that community gardening would offer

significant cost savings through land management. The perception was that community

gardening is a cost centre that requires the mentoring of local authority departments.

This was particularly the case with the Parks Departments of both Dublin City Council,

and South Dublin Council. However Madeleine Ebbs, of Dublin City Council Housing

and Residential Services Department, states that neglected land leads to antisocial

behaviour. Furthermore, “a neglected piece of land leads to dumping of rubbish, and

when one person does that it then sets a precedent”. (Ebbs et al, Interviewee (4), 2009).

This would certainly appear to be the case prior to the creation of the Greenhills

Community garden. Here Eileen Kenny reported a litany of anti social behaviour, and

illegal dumping,

- 130

“…it was costing them money every week to clear this land. There was dumped;

greenhouses, asbestos, builders rubble, fridges, cars, you name it; it was dumped

here, so it was costing them a few thousand every week to clear this land.”

(Kenny & Byrne, Interviewee (1), 2009).

But it was pointed out by Michael Hannon, of South Dublin County Council Parks

Department, that community gardens do not occupy a significant enough area of land to

aid with land management in any widespread manner.

“I think when you talk about community gardens you have to go back to that one

in Stoneybatter, it’s tiny. Any small open space that we have would be maybe 100

times bigger than that, and that would be regarded as a small open space.”

(Hannon et al, Interviewee (1), 2009).

A completely different avenue of cost saving was discussed by both Noel McEvoy, of

Dublin City Parks Department, and Gerry Clabby, of Fingal County Council Planning

Department. Here the prospect of partnership models where the public volunteers time,

and perhaps resources, for the upkeep of green infrastructure in their community was

discussed. This model would facilitate the introduction of more, and better quality,

amenities in an affordable manner. It is explored further within Section 5.3.2.3.6 of

Resource Management, and within the Section 5.3.4.1 of the Recommendations.

5.3.1.2 Education.

Question 1, within Part 2 of the public survey, shows that 93.02 %, or 40 out of 43

respondents, believed that a community garden would make a contribution to

- 131

environmental education. This is the joint highest positive response rate, only equalled

by “Community Development and Cooperation”, and “Improvement of the Area’s

Appearance”. During the research it was also expressed by both participants and local

authorities that community gardening contributes towards environmental and social

education. Much of this education is on an informal basis. Because it does not have a

formal curriculum this could benefit participants by allowing those with enthusiasm to

experiment with horticulture to whatever degree they wish to involve themselves. “I

think the value in community gardening is what you learn from the process, not what

people learn from you, as the authorities or the experts. It’s about what I call distributive

cognition, where people learn collaboratively through a project.” (Burt-O’Dea,

Interview, 2009b).

“It’s a great way to learn, by just doing something hands on. Rather than going to

a lecture, even just making compost, the best way to learn about it is to just do it.

So it’s definitely got a good potential for education.”

(Hill, Interview, 2009)

Beyond the educational value of practical horticultural activity itself, there is also

perceived to be a huge social resource of knowledge and skill within the wider

community. Community gardening provides a conduit for tapping into this knowledge

and skills base, by creating an acceptable and enjoyable amenity for people of widely

different backgrounds to meet and cooperate.

“It’s quite varied. You meet people from allot of different backgrounds. People I

would not normally socialise with.”


- 132

Part of the educational nature of community gardening is in it being a learning resource

of knowledge and skills. This can encompass horticultural skills, biodiversity

knowledge, local history, and knowledge of local and national government policy. As

well as academic knowledge and skills, community gardens can also provide social

skills, and personnel and organisational networking through community participation.

Some of these community garden contributions towards education can be seen within

Figure 1 of Section 2.6. Community gardens also encompass global environmental

issues. It would be a mistake to dismiss the contribution of relatively tiny urban social

projects like community gardens, towards global issues, because of their potential to

educate all sectors of society. As pointed out by Gerry Clabby of Fingal County

Council, if people are not enabled to appreciate nature and biodiversity within their own

neighbourhood, then they cannot be expected to have any concern for wider global

environmental concerns. (Clabby, Interview, 2009b).

“Engagement of people in these issues to me is as much about empathy with the

issues as it is about knowledge about the issue.”

(Clabby, Interview, 2009b).

It is through its very inclusivity that community gardening offers the potential for so

much diverse learning. In some respects the educational style of community gardening

projects is similar to that of “Team Member Teaching Design” (TMTD). Rather than

each student learning and understanding materials independently, with TMTD each

member is assigned a portion of the study materials to teach to the other members of the

group. (Hendrik, 1990, p165). With such a style of education, community gardening can

provide a rapid learning resource.

- 133

“In terms of skill sharing, community gardening is accelerated learning…”


The educational potential of community gardening, both environmental and otherwise,

is open not only to participants but also to observers. It is likely to be further spread

throughout the community by the interaction of participants and observers, with their

friends and family.

“I think it’s very important to encourage youth to get involved, especially schools,

and it means that their parents are then informed about what we are doing.”


In Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, Global Action Plan (GAP) have been

brought in to promote environmental awareness, with national funding from

Revitalising Areas by Planning Investment and Development (RAPID). It is significant

that there is GAP involvement with three different community gardening projects within

the estates at Shanganagh. This has been with GAP working in Shanganagh for a period

of a year and a half. These projects have, and will, involve school children, seniors

groups, women’s groups, and young teenagers. (Traynor, Interview, 2009).

5.3.1.3 Community Development.

Within Question 1, Part 2 of the public survey, 93.02 %, or 40 out of 43 respondents,

believed that community gardening would make a positive contribution towards

“Community Development and Cooperation”. This is the joint highest positive response

- 134

rate, only equalled by “Environmental Education”, and “Improvement of the Area’s

Appearance”.

This affirmation of community development being one of the primary positive

contributions of community gardening is further emphasised by the results of Question

3, Part 2 of the survey. Here respondents selected the activities they considered as

important for a community garden, from 4 options. The activity ranking highest in its

consistent choice as an important activity was “social events and garden parties”, at

79.07% (34 respondents), rather than “growing fruit and vegetables” at 72.09% (31

respondents), which was ranked second highest in its consistent choice as an important

activity. This is a powerful message from the public as to the reasoning behind their

support for community gardening.

Interestingly there was sometimes less belief that community gardening creates

community development, within neighbourhoods, amongst the practitioners of some

community gardening projects, than there was from the local authority representatives

who were interviewed. While those involved in the community gardens at South

Circular Road, and Finglas Community Garden, have diverse backgrounds consisting of

multiple nationalities and ages, neither garden group interacts greatly with their

neighbourhood. “It’s a stand alone set up, the community garden. It’s tangential to the

social structures, but not intimately involved with them.” (O’Sullivan et al, Interviewee

(3), 2009). This is not the case though with Sitric Road Community Composting

Garden, or Greenhills Community Garden, where it is the residents living around the

garden who are the most involved with the community gardening project. In both cases

the garden projects have clearly created community development, by leading to the

creation of a residents association. (Kenny & Byrne, Interviewee (1), 2009), (Burt-

O’Dea, Interview, 2009b).

- 135

All local authority representatives that were interviewed were enthusiastic about

the potential for community gardening to build community, and provide partnerships,

but there are differences in opinion about how best to manage this. The explanations for

these are examined in detail within the Policy and Practice Section of this discussion.

5.3.1.4 Opposition to Community Gardening.

When there is any opposition within a community towards community garden projects,

it is often associated with a fear of antisocial behaviour that maybe attracted by the

activity. This fear of antisocial behaviour being attracted by the project was a factor in

residents’ opposition at the former Dolphin’s Barn Community Garden, according to

Lara Hill of Finglas Community garden, who had previously volunteered there.

“When we started the garden in Dolphin’s Barn; that was a little bit different

because it was just land on the canal, there was some opposition to that from the

residents because they were just wary. Because people had been using that area

before to shoot up, and they probably thought that here is a group of people that

maybe they will be drinking or making trouble. And I guess that [it] was not

official; in those circumstances there was opposition alright.”


At Dolphins Barn this fear of anti social behaviour was a concern not only of the

residents, but also of the owner of the private land that the garden was located upon.

(O’Sullivan et al, Interviewee (1), 2009). South Dublin County Council is currently

facing objections to a community garden proposal in Balgaddy, because of a fear that it

is going to generate antisocial behaviour. “I think that the nub of the problem is that if

- 136

people have a bad experience they are afraid of everything else.” (Hannon et al,

Interviewee (1), 2009).

There are also other causes of resistance from within a community, including a

fear of neutral green space being taken away by others. Seoidin O’Sullivan described

objections from neighbours who “felt threatened, thinking that we were eventually

going to take over the land”. (O’Sullivan et al, Interviewee (1), 2009). This resistance to

community gardening from within communities may simply be a fear of change. Willie

Morrogh, Dublin City Council Community Development Officer, has described this

happening in Herbert Park, where “some residents set up a petition against using a

triangle of land as a community garden”, because “they didn’t want any change”.

(Morrogh, Interview, 2009b). Overcoming resistance to change is also identified as a

future problem that will be faced in Fingal County Council, by their Heritage Officer,

Gerry Clabby, if and when that local authority implements or facilitates more

community garden projects.

“Where you are doing something new, that has not been done before, often you

are trying to overcome inertia. If there is a green space outside their house and

they understand that that’s being mowed all the time, and they are happy with that,

then asking them to buy into something completely different can raise issues.”

(Clabby, Interview, 2009).

Sometimes this resistance to change can be overcome by considering carefully the

location of a community garden. As Dave Lawless, Rapid Coordinator within the

Economic Development and Community Department of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown

County Council, has pointed out “residents don’t always want civic activity outside

their front door. They think it’s a good idea, but not outside their front door.” (Lawless,

- 137

Interview, 2009). Gerry Clabby, of Fingal County Council, raises the same point, and

goes on to suggest that they may need to be integrated into parks or bigger facilities.

(Clabby, Interview, 2009).

Interestingly both the Greenhills Community Garden in South Dublin, and

Shanganagh Community Garden in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, saw no opposition from

residents or from elsewhere. The most striking thing about these two projects is how

local authority structures, managed or supported them. This may tie into Lara Hill’s

comment above, that there was resistance because the Dolphins Barn Community

Garden was not official.

Sociological factors also opposing community gardening are felt to include an

association in some minds with poverty, by both Noel McEvoy, of Dublin City Council

Parks Department, and Kaethe Burt-O’Dea of Sitric Road Community Garden. Burt-

O’Dea goes on to state that “we are so removed from nature now that allot of people

think that it is a kind of dirty activity”. (Burt-O’Dea, Interview, 2009b).

There is no direct opposition to community gardening from any of the four

Dublin local authorities, but the overriding attitude is that community gardens need to

be managed in an accountable manner. This can include some or all of the following,

depending upon which local authority is responsible for the land; insurance, a

constitution, a lease, and project experience. The reason is to protect public land, and

the public that use the land. But this can be daunting, and expensive, for people who are

ultimately volunteering their free time for a community initiative. This is highlighted by

the public survey as a potential problem, because a large majority felt that the

community garden should be run informally, at 62.79% (27 respondents). This clashes

with all local authorities, and their policies on the use of public land. However South

Dublin County Council, and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, have

particularly stringent policies that only facilitate the use of land by very well organised,

- 138

constituted, and insured community groups. (Hannon et al, Interviewee (1), 2009),

(Lawless, Interview, 2009). These requirements are detailed in the Resource

Management Section of this discussion, Sections 5.3.2.3.3 and 5.3.2.3.4 .

The divergence between the needs of local authorities and the wishes of the

public is probably exacerbated by, and perhaps contributes towards, a lack of

“confidence in local authority decisions affecting the area”, as evidenced by the

responses to Question 8, of Part 1 of the public survey. Here it was revealed that

the majority of people did not “have confidence in local authority decisions affecting

the area” at 58.14 % (25 respondents). This becomes potentially more worrying

when viewed in terms of the variation in confidence in local authority decision making,

according to whether respondents are involved in community groups. From Figure 8 we

can see that this climbs to 68.18% of respondents not having “confidence in local

authority decisions affecting the area”, for those respondents who are involved in

community groups. This is likely to be a particular problem with community gardening,

where local authority cooperation with community groups is necessary in allocating

land and funding.

5.3.1.5 Quality of Life.

Traffic and littering, the two greatest detrimental concerns towards quality of life within

Part 1 of the public survey, cannot immediately be seen to be remedied by community

gardening. There is though still a strong response within Part 2 of the public survey,

claiming that community gardening will contribute positively to “Quality of life” issues.

Furthermore vandalism, which has been identified within the semi structured interviews

as a key deterrent to community gardening, is rated as a relatively minor quality of life

issue in Phibsborough, with only 18.60% (8 respondents) rating it as a significant

- 139

problem. Vandalism can be a major issue at other sites across Dublin, and it seems to be

brought up by both community garden participants, and local authority representatives

as a detrimental issue effecting quality of life. According to Dave Lawless “we have

examples of a number of community gardening projects that we have done, and that do

suffer from vandalism.” (Lawless, Interview, 2009). It may however be the case that

community gardening can act to decrease vandalism by “providing the added security of

having more street level activity”. (Hall, 1996, p36).

In answer to Question 4, in Part 2 of the public survey, a small majority of

respondents at 58.14% (25 respondents) had their own garden. This indicates a latent

need for community gardening, with 34.88% (15 respondents) of the people surveyed

claiming they have no garden. However a larger majority than of those without their

own garden were prepared to get involved with the community gardening project at

65.12% (28 respondents). So clearly volunteers are not restricted to those persons

without their own garden. It is always going to be site specific as to whether participants

in community gardens are exercising their only opportunity for gardening, because most

properties in the suburbs have their own garden. This is bourn out by the interviews

where two of the three interviewees at the city centre South Circular Road Community

Garden lived in an apartment, while at the more suburban Greenhills Community

Garden, “most people on the community garden, in on the project, they have gardens”

(Kenny & Byrne, Interviewee (1), 2009). At the South Circular Road Community

Garden, they have even lent a plot of land to a local school that has no green space of its

own. (O’Sullivan et al, Interviewee (1), 2009).

From a “Quality of life” perspective it is interesting to compare the variation on

willingness to volunteer for community gardening, according to whether respondents

within the public survey have their own garden. From Figure 9 we can see that this

climbs up to 86.67% of respondents who would “be prepared to be involved with a

- 140

community garden”, for those respondents whose house does not have a garden. So

clearly those without their own garden are not disinclined to volunteer due to a lack of

gardening experience, and are actually more inclined to participate in community

garden. This indicates that community gardens are an important quality of life amenity

for people without their own private garden.

The potential quality of life contributions from community gardening are

multiple and complex, as can be seen from Figure 1, of Section 2.6 . Using this diagram

we can break down the quality of life contributions into the following 7 quality of life

subsets:

Community Safety

Community Health

Community Facilities

Community Desirability, and Satisfaction.

Community Appearance

Community Ownership and Identity

Community Learning Opportunities

The contribution of community gardening towards Community Safety is primarily a

function of increased cooperation, part of which manifests as observation by

participants, for the welfare of both the garden and its other participants. This is fully

appreciated at Greenhills Community Garden, which was a problem site prior to the

gardening initiative. “As well as that safety factor, there is usually someone working

here in the garden. Lot’s of people use the lane ways for going up and down, but also

we do have undesirables that like to use the lanes to break in the back of houses.”

(Kenny & Byrne, Interviewee (1), 2009).

- 141

There is a Community Health dividend through participation by increased

exercise, and access to fresh vegetables. However some groups may benefit from what

is termed horticultural therapy more than others. “Community gardening is hugely

therapeutic for people who possibly have a mental or physical disability, or who are

older.” (Burt-O’Dea, Interview, 2009b). Horticultural therapy is described by Hall as

being able to “raise knowledge, motivation, confidence, satisfaction, and physical

coordination levels in those seeking rehabilitation”. (Hall, 19996, p28). Horticultural

therapy has been facilitated by South Dublin Council at a sensory community garden

within Corkagh Park, Tallaght.

“We have a connection with a group called Menni Services, they provide services

for children with special needs in the Tallaght area. So they were looking for a

space to be developed firstly for a sensory garden, and secondary to provide

horticultural therapy for these children during the day, and it’s within easy reach

of our base.”


Community Facilities are provided by community gardens in a number of

ways. They provide a learning resource, and often make use of composting as a

mechanism for recycling organic waste. Their most important contribution towards

quality of life though is as a leisure facility. People do not volunteer their time freely,

unless they enjoy the activity. Eileen Kenny has described the Greenhills Community

garden as “an oasis in suburbia”, where “some people come in and have a bottle of wine

and a chat”. (Kenny & Byrne, Interviewee (1), 2009).

Leisure facilities such as community gardens also contribute to quality of life by

increasing the Community Desirability, and Satisfaction of a location. This can be by

- 142

improving the appearance of a location, and consequently leading to increased

community pride. Eileen Kenny described how winning an award from South Dublin

Council was nice for the whole community. (Kenny & Byrne, Interviewee (1), 2009).

The Community Appearance is improved by installing community gardens on

unused or derelict land, as was the case at Greenhills, and Shanganagh Community

Gardens. (Kenny & Byrne, Interviewee (1), 2009), (Traynor, Interview, 2009).

When looking after a community garden it creates social responsibility within

the participants when they have to cooperate in a project like community gardening.

Community Ownership and Identity comes through active participation in your own

environment, rather than being the recipient of services delivered by the local authority.

Anne Traynor has been involved in multiple estate gardening projects at Shanganagh

Estate that seek to develop a sense of ownership, and community pride within the youth

of the estate. Discussing the thinking behind the former Shanganagh Community

Garden, she comments that “it was initiated to improve ownership for the young people

so that they would have a little bit of respect, and a little bit of ownership of the area

they lived in.” (Traynor, Interview, 2009).

Finally community gardening provides a huge Learning Opportunity, as has

already been discussed in Section 5.3.1.2. The act of gardening provides direct learning

of horticultural skills, but of perhaps much greater value in an urban setting, are the

social skills and social networking opportunities that such an activity can provide.

Furthermore even if participants have no immediate interest in the natural environment

they are going to absorb knowledge of the processes in nature from their surroundings,

during the course of gardening.

- 143

5.3.2 Policy and Practice.

Part of the uniqueness of this research involves it’s in depth exploration of the different

styles of engagement with community gardening, which the 4 different Dublin local

authorities employ. Therefore it is useful in this section to split the sub theme analysis

into further sub sections that discuss the findings pertinent to the specific Dublin local

authorities.

5.3.2.1 Community gardening.

5.3.2.1.1 Introduction.

Community gardening projects are now firmly established within Dublin, and the

practice has many advocates within the local authorities. Indeed many community

gardens are initiated by local authorities, and others receive the support and advice of

local authority workers from multiple departments across the four Dublin Local

Authorities.

5.3.2.1.2 Dublin City Council.

Proposals have been put forward by Dublin City Council Parks Department, for the

inclusion of allotments, and community gardens, within the next County Development

Plan. (McEvoy & Dowling, Interviewee (1), 2009). While there is currently no policy

towards community gardening within Dublin City Council’s present Development Plan

2005-2011, there is in practice support from the council for community led community

garden projects. This support has taken the form of providing grants, resources, advice,

- 144

and more recently public land, although this support is not without preconditions, such

as the necessity for a community gardening project to acquire the backing of the local

residents association. (McEvoy & Dowling, Interviewee (2), 2009). Participants in

community gardening projects within the Dublin City Council catchment area have

commented that there is a lack of visibility provided to the public, on the availability

and location of public land. (O’Sullivan et al, Interviewee (1), 2009).

5.3.2.1.3 South Dublin County Council.

Despite the newly proposed official recognition of a council policy, within South

Dublin County Council’s Draft Development Plan 2010-2016, there are few community

gardens currently sited within South Dublin. This could be because of the more

suburban nature of the local authority, which can consequently better provide for

allotments on larger and more widely available tracts of green infrastructure. Indeed

South Dublin County Council does currently provide significant allotment facilities:

“South Dublin County Council has been providing allotment facilities since its

establishment in 1994. Allotments have traditionally been provided on land which

is not immediately required by the Local Authority for its statutory purposes.

South Dublin County Council currently has four allotment sites containing a total

of 245 plots.”

(SDCC 2009b).

According to South Dublin County Council much of the current impetus, within South

Dublin Council, for providing community gardens is coming from the elected council

representatives. This suggests that there is allot of demand amongst the South Dublin

- 145

public, which is now being channelled through their elected local representatives.


5.3.2.1.4 Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council.

In terms of policy towards community gardens, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County

Council appear to be one of the more enlightened of the four Dublin Local Authorities,

having the provision of community gardens included within their Draft County

Development Plan. However it was claimed by the Economic Development and

Community Department representative, that any serious commitment to introducing

community gardens requires them to become a Local Authority Service Indicator,

which requires a certain number of the indicated amenity within a given area. (Lawless,

Interview, 2009). To date community garden projects implemented by Dún Laoghaire-

Rathdown County Council’s Estate Management Forums have included projects at

Shanganagh, Meadowlands, and Glasthule. (See Figure 2).

5.3.2.1.5 Fingal County Council.

There are very few community gardens within the Fingal County Council catchment

area, (See Figure 2). According to Gerry Clabby, the Heritage Officer within Fingal

County Council, this is simply because the submissions from the public are for

allotments and not community gardens. (Clabby, Interview, 2009b). Like South Dublin

Council, Fingal County Council also makes allowance for allotments, although not

community gardens, within its County Development Plan 2005-2011. This is “to

provide allotments within Greenbelt and rural and agricultural areas” (FCC, 2005, p90).

As discussed above within Section 2.8, the wording of this Council Objective “RE08”

- 146

could be used to exclude not only allotments from within urban areas, but potentially

also community gardens as well. This is because there is no separate policy or objective

for community gardens, so as to distinguish them from allotments. This appears to have

occurred in 2009, during the review of submissions to the “Draft Streamstown Local

Area Plan”. In response to a councillor’s motion that part of the development lands

should be reserved for a community garden, due to the high demand for such a facility,

the manager’s report stated that:

“The subject lands are zoned for residential development and are not considered

an appropriate location for the provision of a community garden area…

Allotments or community garden areas should be directed towards greenbelt, rural

and agriculturally zoned lands.”

(FCC 2009b).

Here appears to be a situation where community gardening is being lumped together

with allotment policy, because there is no provision for the former within the Fingal

County Development Plan 2005-2011.

Consequently the wording of an objective requiring allotment provision has been used

as a reason to deny community gardening within land zoned for residential

development. This would appear to show a misunderstanding as to the purpose for, and

the dynamics of, community gardening. The very name community gardening should

indicate that its geographic location belongs within a community, and not adjacent to a

community as may be the case with commercial market gardening, or non commercial

allotment holdings. According to Gerry Clabby, this is most effectively dealt with by

introducing a policy in the development plan, about how and when you introduce

community gardens. “If you read in the development plan, what residential zoning is, it

- 147

will not contain any commitment to community gardens. So therefore we can’t really

impose that on a developer.” (Clabby, Interview, 2009b).

Back in 1986 Moira Quayle pointed out that locating a community garden away

from residences leads to problems:

“In limiting community gardens to rural areas only the most mobile and avid

gardeners would likely participate. Those who could not afford commuting costs

would be neglected. As community gardens are meant for everyone municipalities

are obliged to make them accessible.”

(Quayle, 1986, in Hall, 1996, p 42).

This is also realised within Fingal County Council where Gerry Clabby pointed out that

“one of the issues with all of the allotment provisions is that they are always far away

from people, and if you don’t have a car it is pretty difficult to get there”. (Clabby,

Interview, 2009b). In advocating a different approach to this displacement of green

infrastructure towards the periphery of development, Gerry Clabby has previously

promoted the idea that:

“We must think of green space resources as being infrastructure, in the same way

that we do of roads. There is a tendency to build hard infrastructure, and leave the

leftover bits as green space. This makes it very difficult to retrofit green

infrastructure”

(Clabby 2009a).

- 148

5.3.2.1.6 Conclusion.

There is a strong belief that the introduction of community gardening as a policy into a

County Plan promotes and facilitates community gardening projects. This is expressed

not only by local authorities, such as South Dublin County Council, that have

community gardening as a policy within their County Plan, but also by representatives

of the two local authorities that don’t yet have community garden policies within their

County Plans. These representatives being from, Fingal County Council Planning

Department (Clabby, Interview, 2009b), and Dublin City Council Parks department.

The latter has submitted proposals for the inclusion of community gardening within the

next County Plan. (McEvoy & Dowling, Interview, 2009). This positive attitude

towards the effect of including community gardening within County Plans is shared by

participants. When asked how inclusion within the County Plan would help Lara Hill, of

Finglas Community Garden, replied:

“It would just give it a bit of an official structure…

Even just to give something a seal of approval would help.”

(Hill, Interview, 2009).

A view of how urban Dublin may benefit from the integration of community gardening

and other green infrastructure projects, right from the outset of a development plan, may

be seen within the residential district of Reiselfeld, in Freiberg, Germany. Here such

considerations as public green space, and garden plots within them, were considered as

part of commercial development plans, resulting in their increased desirability, and

financial return. (Dressel, 2009).

- 149

Plate 9: Communal gardening seen within the high density residential development of

Reiselfeld, Freiberg, Germany. (Source: Robert Moss)

5.3.2.2 Planning.


As discussed in Section 2.8, local authority policy is directed internally by County and

Local Area Plans, and externally by guidelines and regulations emanating from central

government departments. An important planning guideline to this dissertation research

is the “Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas-Guidelines for Planning

Authorities” document (2008), by the Department of the Environment, Heritage, and

Local Government. It advocates the inclusion of community gardening as a qualitative

standard for public open space. (DEHLG, 2008, p26). For such guidelines to be

- 150

effective there needs to be a wide awareness of their existence. Not only should this be

within the planning departments that need to include such requirements, but also across

other local authority departments. This then enables them to argue the case for the

inclusion of green infrastructure, such as community gardens, within planned

developments. This argument is taken further by Burt-O’Dea, who argues that for such

guidelines to be effective it is necessary for the public to be educated about their

existence. (Burt-O’Dea, Interview, 2009b).

The awareness of the “Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas-

Guidelines for Planning Authorities” within local authorities differs widely across the

four Dublin Local Authorities, as does the profile of community gardening itself.


The Dublin City Council Development Plan makes no reference to the guidelines as it

predates them. Representatives of both the Housing and Residential Services

Department, and Parks Departments were interested in the content of the guidelines, but

had no prior knowledge of its existence. (McEvoy & Dowling, Interviewee (2), 2009).

(Morrogh, Interview, 2009b).

A major factor in the usefulness of these planning guidelines towards

community gardening is that they only relate to new developments. This is particularly

relevant to Dublin City Council because there are not likely to be many large “district

scale” residential developments undertaken in the city centre over the next few years.

(McEvoy & Dowling, Interviewee (1), 2009).

- 151


There is awareness of these guidelines within the Parks Department of South Dublin

Council (Hannon et al, Interview, 2009). However at South Dublin Council Parks

Department there was a concern that the guidelines were advocating quality over

quantity, and there were doubts about how this would be interpreted by developers.

“I think there is an issue in that it calls for quality over quantity, but it does not

mention any means of maintaining that quality green space. There could also be

issues with developers providing less, but of a supposedly better quality. In such

circumstance we would have concerns about what is provided, for whom, and

where.”


There is far more enthusiasm for the local authorities own policy on community

gardening, Policy SCR63, within the South Dublin County Council Draft Development

Plan 2010-2016, (see section 2.8 of this dissertation). One of the purposes of having

County Plan Policies is to raise the profile of a policy or idea. As Annie Meagher of

South Dublin Parks has pointed out, allotment provision was included in the 2004-2010

South Dublin County Development Plan, and since then they have prospered. As long

as you can relate a project to something within the Development Plan, then it will help

support that project. It is also about educating people and getting the word out in

relation to a policy. (Hannon et al, Interviewee (5), 2009). This would seem to highlight

a key point in encouraging community gardening projects. This being that they are to be

encouraged rather than planned. As Tracy McGibbon of South Dublin County Council

Planning Department points out, “It won’t really impact on developers, I don’t believe,

- 152

it’s more to do with existing local residents, and development groups. There’s no onus

there on developers to create community gardens.”



Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council makes reference to the “Sustainable

Residential Development in Urban Areas-Guidelines for Planning Authorities”

document (2008) within its Draft County Development Plan 2010-2016:

“The “Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas-Guidelines for

Planning Authorities” document (2008) provides detailed guidance on the

provision of open space in new development areas.”

(DLRCC, 2009a, p98)

The representative of the Economic Development and Community Department, of Dún

Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, expressed doubt that they would be acted upon,

simply because they are just guidelines. It was also claimed that the inclusion of

community garden amenities, within the planning of new developments, is not a

successful method of creating community gardens. The argument being that a

prerequisite for community gardens is a sense of community, and that this will be absent

from new developments such as apartment complexes, or new housing estates.

(Lawless, Interview, 2009).

“What I am saying is that community gardens need to be bottom up generic

processes, and not top down processes of design.” (Lawless, Interview, 2009).

- 153

The counter argument would be that community gardens can create this missing sense

of community. To some extent this difference of opinion rests upon whether the key

priority is a sustainable community garden, or increased community development.

Ultimately though, success will depend on both, so there is an argument for directing

the resources for community gardens towards more established communities.


There is awareness within the Planning Department of Fingal County Council of these

guidelines, and Gerry Clabby stated that government policy is an important driver for

such planning considerations as community gardening, or allotments. However it was

felt that just because something is within a set of guidelines, it doesn’t mean it’s going

to happen. This is because, from a planners perspective, if you have never heard of the

concept of a community garden you are not going to act on such a recommendation,

particularly if it’s only two lines in one set of guidelines. (Clabby, Interview, 2009b).


While well meaning, it would seem likely that the inclusion of community gardening

within the “Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas-Guidelines for

Planning Authorities” document (2008) is not likely to see the introduction of many

community gardens in new developments. However it does serve the useful purpose of

acting as a driver, and promoting the concept of community gardening within local

authorities. (Clabby, Interview, 2009b).

It can however be safely assumed that by including the provision of community

gardens as a policy within a County Development Plan it will have a positive effect.

- 154

This is because allotment policy inclusions in County Plans have bourn a resurgence of

such amenities in the local authorities of both South Dublin County Council, and Fingal

County Council. The provision of community gardens need not be associated with new

development, and instead can be directed to utilise public land in established

communities where there may be more demand for such facilities.

5.3.2.3 Resource Management.


The most significant resource that a community garden is dependant upon is land itself.

Currently community garden sites in Dublin are provided by a mixture of private land

owners, and local authorities, allowing vacant plots of land to be used by motivated and

enthusiastic residents. The tenure for the use of such vacant land is not often guaranteed,

and this maybe a factor in the short life cycle of some Dublin community gardening

projects.


Dublin City Council has provided a degree of financial support to the South Circular

Road Community Garden, in the form of a €500 community grant, during its previous

incarnation as the Dolphins Barn Community garden. More recently funding has been

secured from the Local Agenda 21 Environmental Partnership Fund. (O’Sullivan et al,

Interviewee (1), 2009). This is despite the fact that South Circular Road Community

Garden is located upon private land, although the argument could be made that this

project has shown considerable resilience, having to relocate twice since its inception.

- 155

Consequently the project appears strong enough to justify the allocation of resources, as

it is likely to continue in operation for the foreseeable future. Dublin City Council also

invests resources in community garden projects that are initiated by the council itself.

These are generally within senior citizen sheltered accommodation, or within Dublin

City Council flat complexes (See Figure 2). Frequently Dublin city council will provide

the groundwork for such initiatives, installing raised beds in the case of Pearse House

Community Garden, and providing external water and electricity points for Millwood

Court senior citizen sheltered accommodation vegetable garden. (Ebbs et al,



In order to be permitted to operate on South Dublin County Council public land, a

community gardening project needs to be a constituted body with public liability

insurance. (Hannon et al, Interviewee (1), 2009). However the initial cost of this public

liability insurance can be covered by the South Dublin County Council Community

Services Department start up grants. (Hannon et al, Interviewee (2), 2009). By insisting

that community projects sign a lease, have insurance, and meet health and safety

requirements, the council manages to ensure that it only backs community projects that

are determined and strongly organised. (Hannon et al, Interviewee (5), 2009). An

example of South Dublin County Council’s support for community gardening, in

practice, can be seen at Greenhills Community Garden. This relatively new community

garden only started in March 2008, with an official opening on June 21st 2008. Here

South Dublin Council Parks Department, and the Environmental Services Department,

provided invaluable support to the success of the project by funding and providing the

site clearance, and security fencing around the site. However when it came to supplying

- 156

the garden with water, which is a significant requirement for this sizable garden, the

Environmental Services Department required the payment of commercial rates by the

garden, making this an unfeasible option. This suggests the possibility of a lack of

coordination within the department, as the Environmental Services Department had

initially liaised with the Parks Department, in relation to remedying the ongoing cost of

clearing the illegal dumping at the site, by supporting this community garden project.

(Kenny & Byrne, Interviewee (1), 2009). Greenhills Garden provides an indication of

the public support that both allotment and community garden projects can receive.

“Initially there were 14 allotments, but some of these have been split in two or made

smaller to accommodate demand.” (Cullen, 2008, p71). The site of the Greenhills

Community garden is privately owned land. It is significant that in this case the local

authority facilitated the community in setting up their own community garden, and

allotment facility, upon private land, rather than approaching the residents with a

prescriptive project, upon publicly owned land. Elsewhere the Parks Department in

South Dublin County Council have indicated difficulties in allocating resources for a

community garden at Balgaddy, as the site is on private land at Stewart’s Hospital.



According to Dave Lawless, Rapid Coordinator within the Economic Development and

Community Department of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, community

gardening initiatives are best sited on public land because of the issue of squatters’

rights towards land after 4 years and 9 months of occupation. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown

County Council will provide both land and funding for community gardening initiatives

but they must be strongly organised projects, with a clearly defined project scope, and

- 157

plan. To qualify a project needs to demonstrate the clear support of the community, a

capacity of volunteers to maintain the project, and the commitment to run the project as

a long term initiative. Accordingly community garden projects must be constituted with

a committee, they must have public liability insurance, and they must have some past

experience with similar projects. Public liability insurance, which is a prerequisite for

support from Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, will be provided by the local

authority through grants, as is the case with South Dublin Council, but only providing

that the above prerequisites are met. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council

facilitates community groups in meeting these stringent requirements through its Estate

Management Process. “Each Estate Management Programme is given €10 000 per year

to identify pieces of work they want to do locally, such as community gardens.”

(Lawless, Interview, 2009). This is a strong partnership model that is entirely different

to that of more independent projects such as Greenhills Community Garden in South

Dublin, and South Circular Road and Finglas Community Gardens in Dublin City

Council. It could be argued that while this partnership model can provide strong and

sustainable community projects, it does so only for certain types of community project

that fit in with Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council’s operations, and their Estate

Management Forums. Meanwhile it deters spontaneous community gardening on public

land, although such activity is still possible on private land. There is however a strong

argument for this, according to Dave Lawless, in that public land needs to be protected

from individuals or groups who may claim entitlement over it, or engage in activities

that could result in legal action against the local authority due to incidents that occur on

this public land. (Lawless, Interview, 2009).

An example of where this strong partnership model is producing positive results

is the new Shanganagh Community Garden which will be opening soon in Shanganagh

Estate. This estate has supported a community garden previously, in 2003/2004, and the

- 158

history of this is considered elsewhere in Section 2.9. The new community garden will

consist of multiple plots for groups to work collaboratively on, and is funded by

RAPID, through the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council Estate Management

Forum. (Traynor, Interview, 2009). “The aim of the RAPID government initiative

programme is to improve quality of life for the residents of these communities”

(DLRCC, 2009d). It is significant that a community gardening project was identified

and funded as a suitable mechanism for improving the quality of life of residents in this

deprived area, via funding from the RAPID Programme.


Fingal County Council, like South Dublin Council has a stronger culture of allotments,

than it does of community gardens. There are two large allotments, one at Donabate,

and the other in Blanchardstown, with 225 plots in each. Fingal County Council Parks

Department does provide resources for three community sensory gardens, within private

senior citizens day care, and respite facilities. At present there would appear to be only

one true community garden, at Fortlawn Community Centre. (See Figure 2). Around 20

children are maintaining small plots around this community centre. “Fingal County

Council have provided not only funding but manpower and expertise to get the project

off the ground” (Community Voice, 2009). There are plans to set up similar schemes in

Skerries and Balbriggan. According to Gerry Clabby there is currently a change in

thinking on the provision of green infrastructure within Fingal County Council, and a

change in perception of how that needs to be provided. This is reflected in the fact that

the Parks Department will be running Fingal County Council’s allotments, where they

were not previously doing so. It indicates the need to provide more quality and diversity

in what is delivered as green infrastructure, when you move to a model of increased

- 159

residential development density. Previously allotments were large, often neglected plots,

their annual rent not reflecting in any sense their value, and if people were not doing

anything with them there was not any council response to that neglect. This was

reflected in other local authority green infrastructure amenities, such as parks, and estate

green areas, where there was not much of a partnership model. The local authority was

perceived as a rather remote provider of services. The viability of this model where, “we

provide it, and we staff it; in these more constrained times I think we are going to have

to go to community groups, and say we will work with you on this, but you are going to

have to do some work here”. (Clabby, Interview, 2009b). The recent increase in

popularity for growing your own food, and the subsequent demand and waiting lists for

allotments, is acting as an incentive for this partnership model between local authority

and the public. Allowing community gardening initiatives to use public land offers an

affordable option for satisfying this demand.

“One of the things we do have to start thinking about is, if there is this demand

from people to grow their own food, and to have places to do that, how do we as a

local authority respond to that. Allotment provision is actually expensive.”

(Clabby, Interview, 2009b)


The variation in importance to which community gardening is held, across the different

Dublin City and County Councils, could be partly addressed by the Green Party plan to

introduce an allotment officer into the local authorities.

- 160

“For the bigger local authorities, such as the City Councils, we will look to

provide an allotments officer who will work to ensure the provision of adequate

land resources for allotments and community gardens. This position would

compare to the role of a heritage officer or a housing officer and could operate on

a part-time basis.” (Sargent 2009).

This could offer a solution to any problems caused by lack of communication amongst

different organisations, and with the public. An example was given by Burt O’Dea of a

proposal for allotments in Phoenix Park, at Farmleigh, that was being supported by the

Department of The Environment. It reached an advanced stage, before it was refused by

the Office of Public Works because of park opening hours. Improved communication

could have been facilitated by an allotment officer, and would have prevented much

wasted effort. (Burt-O’Dea, Interview, 2009b). The community gardening participants

displayed a mixed opinion of such an initiative. Some were indifferent, others such as

members of the South Circular Road Garden, welcomed such an initiative as “an

allotment/community garden officer would provide a point person for coordinating

grants, access to land, and education. Having one person to call instead of having to

make 17 calls would certainly help” (O’Sullivan et al, Interviewee (3), 2009). There

were some doubts about increasing allotment capacity, as it could result in less

volunteers being available for community gardens. (Hill, Interview, 2009). The opinions

of local authority representatives were also mixed on this subject, with some thinking it

unnecessary now that the public are becoming familiar with the concept of community

gardening (Ebbs et al, Interviewee (1), 2009), but others feeling that an allotment

officer could aid in supporting community gardening initiatives within a community


- 161

A topic on which all community garden participants were in agreement was that more

use could be made of Parks Department plants and materials that are surplus to

requirement. Some participants were not aware of the disposal of plants and bulbs by

Parks Departments at the end of a flower bed’s display, but most had innovative ideas

as to how to make better use of these resources than through disposal. These are

investigated within Section 5.3.4.1. South Circular Road Garden participants felt that

local authorities don’t want to get into an administrative issue of who gets such

unwanted plants. (O’Sullivan et al, Interviewee (3), 2009).

The advantages of participant design of parks, and their ownership, was raised by

Burt-O’Dea as a model for cost savings, and ensuring better care of parks by the local

residents. This could also allow the public to do some of the work within parks in

exchange for some of the plants, or unwanted materials. In this way networks of people

who are interested in these waste streams make it more possible for that to happen.

(Burt-O’Dea, Interview, 2009b). Noel McEvoy of Dublin City Parks Department agreed

that allot of the recycling, or reuse, of plants and materials would have to involve

informal agreements between people in the parks depots, and the local residents. He was

also in favour of a similar scheme to the “Friends of Parks” schemes in America, where

residents help the gardeners to do the work in some of the parks by volunteering their

labour, but he has doubts as “that philosophy has never really gone down well with Irish

minds”. (McEvoy & Dowling, Interviewee (1), 2009). To date they have had only one

person, an American lady, volunteering to help out. Furthermore there are clearly

industrial relations issues with volunteers working for free, particularly in the current

climate where staffing levels are being cut.

- 162

“We also have to remember that there are union issues, and work issues to deal

with. If you bring in people who are doing work that paid people could do you run

into all sorts of industrial relations.”


Within Fingal County Council Planning Department, Gerry Clabby

echo’s this desire of Dublin City Council Parks Department to make greater usage of

the community in the running of amenities, and he shares the same concerns about

industrial relations as Noel McEvoy from Dublin City Council Parks Department.

Discussing the need for a partnership model rather than the traditionally perceived

remote relationship of the local authority, Gerry Clabby states:

“Can we use volunteers? Can we do it that way? That raises issues for us because

people might see that as threatening jobs here.”

(Clabby, Interview, 2009b).

Yet it is a model that Fingal County Council already uses for managing specific assets

such as Newbridge House, near Donabate, where “we have a volunteer component there

with people doing tours of the house, and that’s because we could not possibly pay full

time guides to do that job”. (Clabby, Interview, 2009b).

- 163

5.3.2.4 Agenda 21.


Local Agenda 21 has made a positive contribution towards the majority of community

garden projects across the four Dublin Local Authorities.


Within the catchment area of Dublin City Council, the South Circular Road Community

Garden has recently been approached by the Council Local Agenda 21 Officer, in

relation to the availability of funding for the garden. This is after the garden has been

operating at different locations in the vicinity for 4 years. The Local Agenda 21 Officer

also made the useful linkage towards the possibility of advice from the Dublin City

Biodiversity Officer about biodiversity within the garden. There is the perception from

South Circular Road Community Garden members that Dublin City Council will be

contributing towards its Agenda 21 commitment by providing the South Circular Road

Community Garden with funding to run gardening courses. (O’Sullivan et al,


There is no awareness of Local Agenda 21 at Finglas Community Garden. This

could partly be due to the small scale operation of the garden. There are presently only

about 5 volunteers tending the garden, and there is a lack of community involvement

within the garden project. In some respects this could argue for the need for Local

Agenda 21 support, as Finglas is regarded as a deprived area. The garden site has

experienced social and environmental problems in the past. (Hill, Interview, 2009).

- 164

The perception of Local Agenda 21, at Sitric Road Community Composting

Garden, is that of an under utilised resource. Comparisons were made to Freiberg,

Germany, where the Local Agenda 21 Office provided guided tours of environmentally

friendly initiatives. The Sitric Road Community Composting Garden has applied for

Local Agenda 21 funding in response to a newspaper advertisement, for the Local

Agenda 21 Environmental Partnership Fund. It was suggested that the Agenda 21

requirement to make environmental education available to all groups and ages is

currently being facilitated informally by community garden projects in Dublin. (Burt-

O’Dea, Interview, 2009b)

Within the Community Development Section of Dublin City Council, Willie

Morrogh was aware of Local Agenda 21, but stated that “the position is of low profile

within the council”. He is aware of two Local Agenda 21 Grant applications from

different community initiatives, and has agreed to be the signatory for one of these.

However it should be pointed out that his involvement in providing such assistance

involves him taking this on himself, so as to encourage allotments and community

gardens, because there is an absence of a dedicated Community Garden/Allotment

Officer. (Morrogh, Interview, 2009b). There was no awareness of Local Agenda 21

from the Dublin City Council Housing and Residential Services Department

interviewee (Ebbs et al, Interviewee (1), 2009), and neither was there from one of the

Dublin City Council Parks Department interviewees. (McEvoy & Dowling, Interviewee

(2), 2009). It maybe the case that the knowledge of Local Agenda 21 support, is of more

significance to the local groups that are external to the local authority. However an

awareness of Local Agenda 21 across local authority departments may make a positive

contribution in departmental interactions with the public.

- 165


Within the South Dublin catchment area, Greenhills Community Garden has received a

grant through Local Agenda 21. It is the perception of Greenhills Community Garden

that South Dublin County Council is aware of the environmental education contribution

that community gardening makes towards South Dublin County Council’s Local

Agenda 21 commitments. (Kenny & Byrne, Interviewee (1), 2009).

There is a good knowledge of Local Agenda 21 within South Dublin Council Parks

Department. South Dublin Council Parks Department were able to provide an example

at Glendoher Housing Estate, where Local Agenda 21 funding has been used to improve

the area, and provide environmental education initiatives at the same time. The Council

completed its Agenda 21 Plan last year, and there is an Agenda 21 committee set up

within the council. However it is recognised that the knowledge of Agenda 21 is still

pretty low. (Hannon et al, Interviewee (1), 2009).


Within the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown catchment area, at Shanganagh Community

Development project, where there are preparations for a new community garden, there

was no awareness of Local Agenda 21 by the Shanganagh Community Development

Project representative. (Traynor, Interview, 2009). However this is probably due to the

complex format that is used to operationalise Local Agenda 21 within this local

authority. There is a strong indication that this is the case because the previous

Shanganagh community garden was actually funded by the Local Agenda 21

Partnership Fund!

- 166

Agenda 21 is strongly represented by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council

through the work of the Local Environmental Awareness Plan, (LEAP). It is jointly

funded by the Department of the Environment, and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County

Council, under the Local Agenda 21 Partnership Fund. (El-Sahn, 2004, p3). LEAP was

drawn up in relation to chapter 28 of Agenda 21, and the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown

County Council Local Agenda 21 Action Plan. (El-Sahn, 2004, p16). As part of its

Local Agenda 21 Action Plan, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council required

improved opportunities for public involvement in decision making. One of the ways that

this was facilitated was by setting up Estate Management Forums. (El-Sahn, 2004, p26).

These are made up of residents and a community worker from the Council. They

provide residents with involvement and responsibility in the decision making of their

estates. Forums carry out wide-ranging projects such as community garden creation and

clubs, lane closures, clean ups, graffiti removal, etc. (DLRCC, 2007). Additionally Dún

Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council has set up a Local Agenda 21 steering group, in

order to integrate all the departments within the council that normally work in isolation

to one another. (El-Sahn, 2004, p16). One effect of this Local Agenda 21 steering group

maybe to introduce a wider awareness of Agenda 21 within other departments of Dún

Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. The Estate Management RAPID Coordinator at

Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, Dave Lawless, was aware of Local Agenda

21, and explained that “the Agenda 21 Officer sits on our advisory committee, and

would make connections between what they are doing and what we are doing”.


- 167


While claiming that Agenda 21 has resulted in a transformation of environmental

attitudes, and the perception of sustainability within the local authority, the Fingal

County Council Planning Department representative also identified key faults in the

implementation of Local Agenda 21, within the local authority. These failings were that

there was no dedicated Local Agenda 21 Officer, they were not appointed at a

significant enough level, and their remit was not focussed enough. (Clabby, Interview,

2009b)

“Because Agenda 21 was about achieving transformational change. If you are

trying to change people from doing things the way they have been doing them for

50 or 100 years, you don’t achieve that quickly, and also you don’t achieve it if

you are not at the right level within the organisation.”

(Clabby, Interview, 2009b)


Local Agenda 21 is characterised by two key features; local action plans to achieve

sustainability, and a bottom up approach to the resolution of local issues. (Fahy, 2008,

p2). Community gardens offer a well suited social mechanism for the pursuit of these

requirements. Coupled with the support of local authority resources, they offer a strong

potential to provide Agenda 21 objectives, such as access to environmental education

for all sectors of society, via a bottom up approach. To some extent this is happening,

but support across the Dublin local authorities is erratic, and hampered by other issues

- 168

such as public liability insurance, health and safety requirements, land use

considerations, and opposition from other social structures.

5.3.3 Wider Issues.

5.3.3.1 Issues that encourage or prevent participation in Community Gardening.

Within Question 6, Part 2 of the public survey, “Advice on planting and gardening” is

ranked as “useful for getting residents involved” by the largest majority of the

respondents at 81.40% (35 respondents). This is significantly more than for

“Security of land use” which was ranked as “useful for getting residents involved” by

the lowest majority of the respondents at 69.77% (30 respondents). This is extremely

surprising as both the “Recent History of Community Gardening in Dublin”, in section

2.9 of the literature review, and the interviews with participants and local authorities,

have indicated that security of tenure is possibly the biggest factor in peoples

willingness to participate, and ultimately the success of a community gardening project.

A note of caution should be raised however by the low survey sample size, and the fact

that 11 people did not express any opinion for this option. This may suggest that there

was some confusion as to the meaning of the phrase “Security of land use”.

Understandably security of tenure was stated to be the single most important

factor for community gardening by Lara Hill of Finglas Community Garden, because

the Dolphins barn Community garden, that she had been involved with, was previously

evicted from that site by the landowner.

- 169

“I would be slow to get involved in that kind of a project again, because we put so

much work into the Dolphins Barn Garden. We did the crop rotation, planted

green compost, and did all this work, and then had to leave it.”


Possession of Public Liability Insurance for community gardens is a significant annual

cost, and can act to deter community gardening, particularly from sites on public land

where the local authority has a mandatory policy on public liability insurance. The

actual possession of this by the 5 community gardens interviewed, varied according to

the local authority area they were located in. Both the Shanganagh Community Garden

in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, and Greenhills Community Garden in South Dublin

possess public liability insurance. (Kenny & Byrne, Interviewee (1), 2009), (Traynor,

Interview, 2009). This is probably a reflection on the policy of the two local authorities

to insist that community groups on public land have public liability insurance. Although

this is initially paid for by the local authorities, using start up grants. Neither of the three

community gardens within the catchment area of Dublin City Council had public

liability insurance. This is probably because it is Dublin City Council’s policy to advise

that community groups take out public liability insurance, rather than to insist upon this.

Although none of the three community gardens are actually situated on public land

anyway.

Security is considered by many practitioners of community gardening to be the

single biggest factor in encouraging or discouraging community gardening. It is a

recurring theme, and from discussions with elderly community garden participants, theft

appears to have been a historical problem with urban food growing in Dublin, back in

the early 1960’s.

- 170

“They robbed everything, and it was these “fellas” and they would be there with

tractor and trailers at 5 and 6 o’clock in the morning. They would take everything

they could lay their hands on.”

(Kenny & Byrne, Interviewee (2), 2009)

It has also been commented upon by representatives of Dublin City Council Parks

Department, and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council Economic Development

and Community Department, that community garden projects are favoured by more

affluent middle class neighbourhoods.

“Plots within working class areas where people are just trying to get from day to

day, from wage cheque to wage cheque, who are dealing in manual work, it is

very difficult to get them to pick up a spade again to go out and grow their own

vegetables.”


5.3.3.2 Issues that contribute to success or failure.

Local authorities can be crucial for initiating community gardens, specifically in the

allocation of public land, and funding. However it is the enthusiasm of participation by

the community that is the most important factor in the long term success of a

community garden.

“I just think that one of the essential things for a community garden to be able to

survive is that you have more than one or two individuals taking responsibility for

the project.” (O’Sullivan et al, Interviewee (1), 2009).

- 171

Seoidin O’Sullivan of South Circular Road Community Garden, went on to explain that

as community gardening is a voluntary activity, peoples’ free time is limited, and

consequently the lack of responsibility from others, can put that person under allot of

strain. (O’Sullivan et al, Interviewee (1), 2009). This situation is all to familiar for a

number of local authority interviewees, who identified it as the primary reason for

community garden failure, and the reason why they are sometimes cautious when

people approach them with community gardening idea’s. Noel McEvoy of Dublin City

Council Parks Department is even of the opinion that community gardens are not likely

to survive on their own in the long term, because “there is no sense of making a huge

investment either personally or financially”. Consequently he believes that success lies

in community gardens being tied to allotments, because allotments require an

investment in an annual lease. (McEvoy & Dowling, Interviewee (1), 2009).

“You have some great willing people, who will keep it going, but by and large

they can melt away, and they have melted away, but my point is that shouldn’t be

seen as a failure.”


According to Dave Lawless of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, for the

success of a community gardening project, the local community must be able to provide

“Interest, Capacity, and Leadership” This latter must also be effectively replaced

throughout the lifespan of the project, because otherwise that project will die when the

current leadership leaves the project. (Lawless, Interview, 2009).

- 172

“Usually its how it works, you find one or two who are committed and driven, and

they get great participation from the community, but when they leave the process,

the project fails.”


Consequently “you have to be replacing yourself in terms of leadership”. (Lawless,

Interview, 2009). It is a requirement for this that leads him to advocate the need for

official structures and constitutions, in order to provide sustainability to any projects

that will be supported by the local authority.

Effective community participation is a result of successful interest and support

capacity within a community, and is usually going to come from the local residents. As

Hall has stated, “promoting stewardship of a site is best accomplished by making it an

integral part of the neighbourhood.” (Hall, 1996, p41). There are other benefits involved

with the participation of the local community, in that these are the people who are best

placed to monitor the welfare of the community garden over time. This is particularly

important as vandalism is considered to be a major obstruction to community gardening

in Dublin by both participants, and local authority workers.

“I suppose the issue of security, maybe their crops being stolen or vandalised.

Those are the only two things that I can think of, that would put people off.”

(Kenny & Byrne, Interviewee (1), 2009)

However it should be noted that within the public survey, vandalism ranked lowest as a

quality of life issue in Phibsborough. Only 18.60% of people perceived it to be a

problem. It is likely that the vulnerability of community gardening projects to vandalism

varies widely on their location within the city.

- 173

It has also been put forward that by involving the age groups that indulge in

vandalism, this helps prevent vandalism of community gardens. The assumption here is

that people will not vandalise that which they have a stake in. “I think it’s important,

especially if you are in a vulnerable area, to get the young people involved. If they put

down plants and seeds then they won’t vandalise them.” (Kenny & Byrne, Interviewee

(1), 2009).

It’s worth emphasising that in order for the garden to become a part of people’s lives in

this manner, responsibility and management need to be devolved as much as possible by

the local authority, because otherwise:

“…there is the attitude of; well they are paid to manage this so it is their problem.

I think responsibility dissipates with the idea that someone is managing the

project.”

(O’Sullivan et al, Interviewee (1), 2009).

This phenomena has been experienced by some of the local authority interviewees as

well. Noel McEvoy, of Dublin City Parks Department, commenting on his previous

experience working with Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, reported on how

the local authority had intervened to maintain the standard of community gardening.

This was to ensure they were visually well kept public spaces, but the end result was

that the community garden participants would not contribute to the gardens upkeep

when it was seen that the council were doing the work for them. (McEvoy & Dowling,

Interviewee (1), 2009). Community management and responsibility is a requirement not

only for the success of specific community garden projects, but in a wider context it is

an important component in providing both quantity, and quality of green infrastructure

within a city. Because community participation involves volunteers giving their time for

- 174

free “volunteer effort makes community gardens more cost effective than those

controlled by a central agency.” (Hall, 1996, p40). The argument being that this allows

more of them, and for them to be better managed. This community responsibility is

recognised as a vital requirement by some local authorities. It is acknowledged that it is

just too difficult to introduce community gardening without it, by Gerry Clabby of

Fingal County Council. “Where we are looking at cooperating with people to run their

own garden, then I think the bottom line there is we can’t force that kind of

cooperation.” (Clabby, Interview, 2009).

5.3.4 Recommendations.

5.3.4.1 Resource Management.

(1) Dave Lawless, of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, advocates the need for

community garden projects to be constituted with official procedures and administrative

positions. The reasoning behind this is to prevent the pattern whereby projects begin

with enthusiasm, but then disappear when the key community leaders of the project

leave. By having key people in key positions for a finite period of time no one person is

overburdened, and administrative commitment is not open ended.

“You have to be replacing yourself in terms of leadership and drivers.”


(2) Agenda 21 could be better funded by a “ring fenced” local government

environmental tax.

- 175

“If you want a real local government system that is really autonomous, what you

need is local taxes and autonomy, and then people can make decisions which are

different to the central government.”

(Clabby, Interview, 2009)

(3) Local Authority Parks Department plants and materials that are currently disposed

of could be recycled into the community. Delivering them to:

Recycle centres (Kenny & Byrne, Interviewee (1), 2009),

Community centres and schools, (Traynor, Interview, 2009),

Existing local authority bedding plant sales (Hill, Interview, 2009),

Leaving them in situ with public notification of their availability. (Traynor, Interview,

2009), (O’Sullivan et al, Interviewee (3), 2009),

This would allow them to be distributed freely to the community, without incurring a

significant administrative cost centre.

(4) There is the potential for a Pareto positive gain to be made through the community

collaborating with public parks. This would involve volunteers assisting with park

maintenance in return for surplus materials, plants, and waste products. (Burt-O’Dea,

Interview, 2009b), (McEvoy & Dowling, Interviewee (1), 2009).

(5) Attach a community gardening project to other interests within the community,

particularly if there is no prior experience of community gardening, or even of

gardening in that location. One of the reasons for the success and comparative

- 176

longevity, by Dublin standards, for the Sitric Road Community Composting Garden is

that it is so much more than just a garden

“It has become more that just gardening. We have been doing skill exchange. We

have started teaching things to each other. How to make soap, group canning, face

creams. We are open to learning any new skills, or sharing skills.”

(Burt-O’Dea, Interview, 2009b)

(6) Introduce nominal fees for garden membership, to instil value for the enterprise and

its resources. Traynor recommends a two tier pricing system to incentivise greater

participation. (Traynor, Interview, 2009), (McEvoy & Dowling, Interviewee (1), 2009).

“One of the policies will be that if you register your child you have to be involved,

and if you can’t give a day then the price goes up.”

(Traynor, Interview, 2009).

(7) When issues of community support are cleared, then greater support could be

provided by local authorities for community gardening initiatives, in order for them to

become officially legitimate. This could include provision of public liability insurance

through grants, fencing, and utilities. As an example of this need for greater support,

Greenhills Community Garden have had to investigate the construction of a well, as the

local authority would have charged commercial rates for supplying water. (Kenny &

Byrne, Interviewee (1), 2009). Even information for community groups that explains

that people can make use of public land for community gardens, in the right

circumstances, could make a huge difference. (Ebbs et al, Interviewee (1), 2009).

- 177

It is also important for local authorities to limit bureaucracy whenever possible in

dealing with community initiatives such as community gardening because:

“It is all voluntary activity, so putting together a proposal for funding is allot of

work, and is time consuming.”


(8) There is an argument for greater analysis of site management costs. This should be

on a site specific basis, for the cost of unmanaged site maintenance, versus projected

managed site maintenance cost. There is currently not enough visibility of true costs

across local authority departments. This is because different departments are responsible

for the different functions that are carried out upon green infrastructure, or derelict land.

As an example clean up costs are sometimes not factored into the cost of managing

neutral green space without community participation. (Hannon et al, Interviewee (5),

2009). This would have to be done on a site specific basis, as much of the cities green

infrastructure is maintained affordably through low maintenance management. However

some sites are particularly problematic for dumping and anti social behaviour. Often

theses activities can present further problems, such as health hazard issues, and can

create a further drain on resources. A good example is the former dumping of asbestos

upon the site of Greenhills Community Garden. (Kenny & Byrne, Interviewee (1),

2009).

(9) Greater linkages between different local authority projects, so as to maximise

efficiency and gains. For example FAS do training projects on horticulture. Why not

bring the people that are training into work on community gardens, or to set them up.


- 178

(10) Community gardening projects should be encouraged to approach local businesses

for sponsorship, especially if they are purchasing lots of materials at the start of a

project. (Kenny & Byrne, Interviewee (1), 2009).

(11) Local authorities could promote existing community gardens within their

catchment areas upon their websites. (Hill, Interview, 2009).

(12) Setting up a seed bank or cooperative. This would involve small donations from

interested gardens to acquire shared resources from the likes of Irish Seed Savers.


5.3.4.2 Land Management.

(1) When feasible community gardens should be combined with allotments, so that they

can benefit from additional horticultural interest, and possibly stay in operation for

longer.

“You need commitment, and you need commitment that is not just ideas.

Community gardens need to be very close to someone’s abode, or you need to tie

them into something that people have to financially get invested in.”


(2) Careful consideration should be given to the viability of building community

gardening into the planning of developments, although the support structures should be

there in the future, and adequate public land needs to be set aside for any future

- 179

community gardening projects, if and when the development comes to support a

community that is itself able to support and maintain a community garden.

“The interest has to be within the community, the capacity has to be within the

community, the leadership has to be within the community, without those three

you can design what you like but you will not have community gardens.”


(3) More imaginative use of landscaped grounds in private residential apartment blocks

could be made. Although not the easiest location for a local authority to retrofit a

community garden, due to issues of consensus, such amenities are vital for building

community in these complexes. Perhaps including a planning approval requirement that

some of the landscaped grounds are offered as garden plots. It could provide another

revenue stream for the management company. (Hill, Interview, 2009), (Lawless,

Interview, 2009).

(4) Resident’s associations are a particularly strong feature of urban Dublin life.

Getting “buy in” from the local resident’s association avoids local resistance from the

local community, and aids in gaining cooperation from the local authority for the

project. Resident’s associations may also be able to provide cover through their own

public liability insurance (Kenny & Byrne, Interviewee (1), 2009), (Ebbs et al,


The recent experience of Green Friends Community Garden has been that while Dublin

City Council have been supportive in providing a location for a garden upon public

land, this has been blocked by objections from the local residents association.

- 180

“We were offered the site by Dublin City Council, without residents knowing

about it, and it has caused a set back in the project as we now have to tread extra

carefully, and try to mend a relationship between Dublin City Council, the local

residents, and the group who wants to start the garden. Involvement of the local

community is vital from the early stages of project conception.”

(Lerendu-Brand, 2009)

(5) Public land should continue to be favoured for community garden projects. This is

because it offers a semi permanent location for a community garden that will not be

developed in the short to medium term. The suggestion of local authorities providing

standardised contracts and terms of use for the temporary utilisation of unused private

land, for a community garden, is probably not practical. This is because the local

authorities must maintain an uncomplicated relationship with the developers, whose

planning proposals they must consider. (Lawless, Interview, 2009).

- 181

Chapter 6 – Conclusion.

6.0 Conclusion.

The “Quality of Life” contribution in Dublin from community gardening is appreciated

by both participants and local authorities, although there are differences of approach in

how community gardens should be provided, between the four different local

authorities. The survey conducted into the perceptions of contribution towards quality

of life for residents, in close proximity to a community garden, also revealed that there

is strong appreciation of a positive contribution towards quality of life, from community

gardening, by these residents. The public survey conducted in Phibsborough, North

Central Dublin, has also shown that those respondents without their own garden are not

disinclined to volunteer due to a lack of gardening experience. Instead they are actually

more inclined to participate in community gardening. This indicates that community

gardens are an important quality of life amenity for people without their own private

garden. With the Dublin Regional Planning Guidelines calling for a model of increased

urban density, there is a need for increased public amenities, as the availability of

private space reduces. Community gardens will provide an important quality of life

function in any future high density model for urban Dublin. The most important quality

of life components that community gardening contributes towards have been identified

within the semi structured interviews as, education, inclusivity, community pride,

respect through integration, and community cooperation. There are currently some

issues relating to a lack of knowledge about community gardening, because it is

relatively new, and consequently local authorities do not have successful models or a

past history to refer to.

The presumption that strong support, preferably from multiple sources of

community structure, is a requirement for community gardening success, belies a more

- 182

complex relationship. In reality community gardens can be the catalyst for the creation

of residents associations, and other community initiatives. It is probably most useful to

state that where other community structures do exist, it is important to secure their

acceptance, support, and where possible participation in the community gardening

project. However the absence of such community structures, or their indifference,

should not be seen as a barrier to creating other community projects and amenities such

as a community garden. There are at least two examples within this study (Sitric

Community Compost Garden, and Greenhills Community Garden) where community

gardens have prospered without the resources of such community structures, and indeed

both have gone some way towards filling a void of community participation, and quality

of life, for some residents.

The semi structured interviews, and to a lesser extent the literature review,

revealed the existence if two separate groups involved in implementing and running

community gardening projects. The most numerous group, in terms of individuals and

projects, are community based projects seeking to improve and develop the community

within which they and the garden are based. These groups are characterised by strong

community participation, and strong partnerships with local authorities, often involving

local authority funding of the project upon public land. The primary objective of such a

project is provision of community activity, often for younger people, but with a strong

ethos of inclusivity.

The second major group involved in community gardening within Dublin are

environmental activists. These tend to be educated individuals in employment, who are

engaging with urban growing in general, and community gardening in particular, as a

lifestyle choice. Their age range is very varied from students to retiree’s. Often such

projects are less community based, and volunteers have claimed to cycle across the city

to participate at one or other such community gardening project. There is less of a local

- 183

authority partnership with these environmental community gardens, and they are more

likely to be sited on private land. The primary objective of such community garden

projects is environmental education.

The major issues that community gardening faces in Dublin are security of

tenure, which has previously been more of a concern due to development, participant

support and enthusiasm, support from residents, site location and visibility, and site

accessibility and security. Lesser issues include public liability insurance, experience,

funding, and being constituted with procedures and positions.

- 184

Chapter 7 – References.

7.0 References.

Notes:

(1)Where possible, page numbers are provided within the text for documents which

have been referred to. However as some web based documentation does not follow a

page numbered format this is not always possible.

(2)Where possible, references are always made to the original source of material.

Infrequently this is not possible, when the original source is a specialised paper that

was not widely published, and is not available electronically.

Baker, S. (2006) Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.

Baynes, P. (2006) Finglas Community Garden, [Internet], in Indymedia Ireland. [Internet], Dublin: Independent Media Centre Ireland. [Accessed 30th August 2009] Available from World Wide Web: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76336

Bell, J. (1999) Doing Your Research Project; A guide for first time researchers in education and social science. 3rd Edition. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Burt-O’Dea, K. (2009a) Seminar Notes. [What can we grow in the city? Friday 24th

April 2009] Dublin: Cultivate Centre. Rethinking the City 2009 - Making the Transition to Resilience.

Burt-O’Dea, K. (2009b) Interview Transcript. [Sitric Community Compost garden. Monday 31st August 2009] Dublin: Sitric Road.

CAAS (Environmental Services) Ltd. (2008) environmental report of the Mountjoy/Phibsborough Local Area Plan Strategic Environmental Assessment. [Internet], Dublin: Dublin City Council. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.dublincity.ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/EnvironReportDraftPhibsboroughMountjoyLAP.pdfAccessed 19th September 2008.

- 185

http://www.dublincity.ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/EnvironReportDraftPhibsboroughMountjoyLAP.pdf

http://www.dublincity.ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/EnvironReportDraftPhibsboroughMountjoyLAP.pdf

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76336

Cahn, S. (2009) Seminar Notes. [Get Ireland growing: A public meeting on growing food locally. Friday 24th April 2009] Dublin: Green Party. Get Ireland growing.

Clabby, G. (2009a) Seminar Notes. [What can we grow in the city? Friday 24th April 2009] Dublin: Cultivate Centre. Rethinking the City 2009 - Making the Transition to Resilience.

Clabby, G. (2009b) Interview Transcript. [Fingal County Council Planning Department. Friday 11th September 2009] Swords: County Hall.

Community Voice. (2009) Gardening in Fortlawn. [Internet], Dublin: Community Voice. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.communityvoice.ie/pages/CV134/CV134c05.htmAccessed 15th October 2009.

Cullen, M. (2008) Uncovering the plot: Investigating Urban Agriculture in Dublin. [Internet], Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology. Available from World Wide Web: http://dublinfoodgrowing.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/michael-thesis-with-bibs-refs-and-apps.pdf Accessed 16th February 2009.

Cutter, S. (1985) Rating Places: a Geographer’s view on Quality of Life. Washington dc: Association of American Geographical Research Publishers, in Fahy, F. (2008) Galway 21: Implementing the Principles and Practices of Sustainable Development in Galway City Council. EPA STRIVE Programme 2007–2013. [Internet], Dublin: EPA. [Accessed 20th April 2009] Available from World Wide Web: www.epa.ie

Dresel, T. (2009) Lecture Notes. [Sustainability – The Freiberg Experience. Wednesday 18th March 2009] Freiberg: Environmental Protection Agency.

Dublin Regional Authority and Mid-East Regional Authority. (2004) Regional Planning Guidelines Greater Dublin Area 2004-2016. [Internet], Dublin: Dublin Regional Authority and Mid-East Regional Authority. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.rpg.ie/pdf/RPG_Guidelines.pdfAccessed 19th August 2009.

DCC. (2005) Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011. [Internet], Dublin: Dublin City Council. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.dublincity.ie/development_plan/CONTENTS.PDFAccessed 12th July 2009.

DCC. (2008a) Phibsborough / Mountjoy Local Area Plan. [Internet], Dublin: Dublin City Council. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/OtherDevelopmentPlans/LocalAreaPlans/PhibsboroughMountjoyLocalAreaPlan/Pages/PhibsboroughMountjoyLocalAreaPlan.aspxAccessed 19th September 2008.

DCC. (2008b) Phibsborough/Mountjoy Draft Local Area Plan Managers Report on Submissions from Public Display. Dublin: Dublin City Council.

- 186

http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/OtherDevelopmentPlans/LocalAreaPlans/PhibsboroughMountjoyLocalAreaPlan/Pages/PhibsboroughMountjoyLocalAreaPlan.aspx

http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/OtherDevelopmentPlans/LocalAreaPlans/PhibsboroughMountjoyLocalAreaPlan/Pages/PhibsboroughMountjoyLocalAreaPlan.aspx

http://www.dublincity.ie/development_plan/CONTENTS.PDF

http://www.rpg.ie/pdf/RPG_Guidelines.pdf

http://www.epa.ie/

http://dublinfoodgrowing.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/michael-thesis-with-bibs-refs-and-apps.pdf

http://dublinfoodgrowing.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/michael-thesis-with-bibs-refs-and-apps.pdf

http://www.communityvoice.ie/pages/CV134/CV134c05.htm

DLRCC. (2004) Community Support. [Internet], Dublin: Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.dlrcoco.ie/Accessed 13th October 2009.

DLRCC. (2007) Estate Management. [Internet], Dublin: Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.dlrcoco.ie/Accessed 30th October 2009.

DLRCC. (2009a) Local Agenda 21 Partnership Fund 2009. [Internet], Dublin: Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.dlrcoco.ie/env/LA21_Fund_Ad_2009.htmAccessed 13th September 2009.

DLRCC. (2009b) Environmental Report of the Draft Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2010-2016 SEA. [Internet], Dublin: Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.dlrcoco.ie/planning/DevPlan2010_2016/Draft/SEA/Section5.pdfAccessed 10th July 2009.

DLRCC. (2009c) Draft County Development Plan 2010-2016. [Internet], Dublin: Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.dlrcoco.ie/planning/DevPlan2010_2016/Draft/Plan/Chapter10.pdfAccessed 10th July 2009.

DLRCC. (2009d) Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown RAPID Programme. [Internet], Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.dlrcoco.ie/Accessed 13th November 2009.

Denscombe, M. (2007) The good research guide: for small-scale social research projects. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Denzin, N; Lincoln, Y. (2000) Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

DEHLG. (1997) Sustainable Development, A Strategy for Ireland. [Internet], Dublin: Department of the Environment, Heritage, and Local Government. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/SustainableDevelopment/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,1825,en.pdfAccessed 13th September 2009.

DEHLG. (2008) Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas-Consultation Draft Guidelines for Planning Authorities. [Internet], Dublin: Department of the Environment, Heritage, and Local Government. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,16691,en.pdfAccessed 11th July 2009.

Dolphins Barn Garden. (2006) Dolphin's Barn community garden under threat, [Internet], in Indymedia Ireland. Dublin: Independent Media Centre Ireland. [Accessed

- 187

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,16691,en.pdf

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,16691,en.pdf

http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/SustainableDevelopment/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,1825,en.pdf

http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/SustainableDevelopment/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,1825,en.pdf

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/planning/DevPlan2010_2016/Draft/Plan/Chapter10.pdf

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/planning/DevPlan2010_2016/Draft/SEA/Section5.pdf

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/env/LA21_Fund_Ad_2009.htm



23rd February 2009] Available from World Wide Web: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75438

Dolphins Barn Garden. (2007) 3rd time lucky for community garden in Dublin 8? [Internet], in Indymedia Ireland. Dublin: Independent Media Centre Ireland. [Accessed 6th April 2009] Available from World Wide Web: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84268

Donnelly, M. (2009) Seminar Notes.[ Why are our cities vulnerable? Friday 24th April 2009] Dublin: Cultivate Centre. Rethinking the City 2009 - Making the Transition to Resilience.

Dublin ECG. (2006) New community garden up and running in Phibsboro, [Internet], in Indymedia Ireland. Dublin: Independent Media Centre Ireland. [Accessed 21st February 2009] Available from World Wide Web: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74524

Ebbs, M (1); Callan, N (2); Glanville, D (3); Kennedy, B (4); Malone, K (5); (2009) Interview Transcript. [Dublin City Council Housing and Residential Services Department. Thursday 6th August 2009] Dublin: Domville Court Community Garden.

Eberstadt, N. (1997) Research: “Too Few People” in Pepper, D; Webster, F; Revill, G. (2003) Environmentalism: critical concepts. London: Routledge.

El-Sahn, E. (2004) A Study of Environmental Initiatives in the Shanganagh Estate (Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council), with particular focus on Community Gardening as a gateway to Environmental Awareness and Action in Local Authority Housing Estates. Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology.

Fahy, F. (2008) Galway 21: Implementing the Principlesand Practices of Sustainable Development in Galway City Council. EPA STRIVE Programme 2007–2013. [Internet], Dublin: EPA. [Accessed 20th April 2009] Available from World Wide Web: www.epa.ie

Fahy, F; Ó Cinnéide, M. (2006) Quality of Life in Galway City: Questionnaire Survey Results by Electoral Division. EPA STRIVE Programme 2007–2013. [Internet], Dublin: EPA. [Accessed 9th June 2009] Available from World Wide Web: http://erc.epa.ie/safer/downloadCheck.jsp?isoID=91&rID=10244&atID=1459

FCC. (2005) Fingal Development Plan 2005 – 2011. [Internet], Dublin: Fingal County Council. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.fingalcoco.ie/devplan/yourfingal/Stage4/written_statement/Part%205-Rural%20Areas.pdfAccessed 15th July 2009.

FCC. (2009a) Local Agenda 21 Environmental Partnership Fund 2009. [Internet], Dublin: Fingal County Council. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.fingalcoco.ie/Environment/EnvironmentalAwarenessEducation/LocalAgenda21/Accessed 13th September 2009.

- 188

http://www.fingalcoco.ie/Environment/EnvironmentalAwarenessEducation/LocalAgenda21/

http://www.fingalcoco.ie/Environment/EnvironmentalAwarenessEducation/LocalAgenda21/

http://www.fingalcoco.ie/devplan/yourfingal/Stage4/written_statement/Part%205-Rural%20Areas.pdf

http://www.fingalcoco.ie/devplan/yourfingal/Stage4/written_statement/Part%205-Rural%20Areas.pdf

http://erc.epa.ie/safer/downloadCheck.jsp?isoID=91&rID=10244&atID=1459

http://www.epa.ie/




FCC. (2009b) Extract from County Council meeting 15 April 2009: Draft Streamstown Local Area Plan. [Internet], Dublin: Fingal County Council. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.fingalcoco.ie/minutes/meeting_doc.aspx?id=35899Accessed 15th July 2009.

Government of Ireland. (1926) Acquisition of Land (Allotments) Act [Internet], Dublin: Office of the Attorney General. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1926/en/act/pub/0008/print.htmlAccessed 14th September 2009.

Grayson, R; Campbell, F. (2000) About community gardens. Australian Community Gardens Network. [Internet],[Accessed 24th February 2009] Available from World Wide Web:http://www.communitygarden.org.au/about/e_intro.html

Greenhills Residents Association. (2008) Greenhills Community Garden [Internet], Dublin: Greenhills Residents Association. [Accessed 6th April 2009] Available from World Wide Web: http://greenhillsresidentsassociation.org/html/gcgp_page01.htm

Grey, R. (2009) Meeting Notes. [Older Persons’ Unit. Friday 28th August 2009] Dublin: Dublin City Council Civic Offices Wood Quay.

Hall, D. (1996) Community Gardening as an Urban Planning Issue. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

Hannon, M (1); Carton, N (2); Kearney, W (3); McGibbon, T (4); Meagher, A (5). (2009) Interview Transcript. [South Dublin Council. Monday 21st September 2009] Dublin: County Hall, Tallaght.

Hendrik, K. (1990) Systematic Safety Training. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.

Hill, L. (2009) Interview Transcript. [Finglas Community Garden. Thursday 20th August 2009] Dublin: Finglas Community Garden.

Holland, L. (2004) Diversity and connections in community gardens: a contribution to local sustainability. Local Environment, Volume 9, Number 3, pp 285 — 305. [Internet], London: Routledge. [Accessed 21st February 2009] Available from World Wide Web: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354983042000219388

John Spain Associates. (2008) Community & Social Infrastructure Audit of the Phibsborough/Mountjoy Local Area Plan. [Internet], Dublin: Dublin City Council. [Accessed 22nd May 2009] Available from World Wide Web: http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/OtherDevelopmentPlans/LocalAreaPlans/Documents/07006%20Community%20%20Social%20Infrastructure%20FINAL.pdf

Kenny, E (1); Byrne, C (2). (2009) Interview Transcript. [Greenhills Community Garden Project. Tuesday 4th August 2009] Dublin: Greenhills Community Garden.

- 189

http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/OtherDevelopmentPlans/LocalAreaPlans/Documents/07006%20Community%20%20Social%20Infrastructure%20FINAL.pdf

http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/OtherDevelopmentPlans/LocalAreaPlans/Documents/07006%20Community%20%20Social%20Infrastructure%20FINAL.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354983042000219388

http://greenhillsresidentsassociation.org/html/gcgp_page01.htm

http://www.communitygarden.org.au/about/e_intro.html

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1926/en/act/pub/0008/print.html

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1926/en/act/pub/0008/index.html#zza8y1926

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1926/en/act/pub/0008/index.html#zza8y1926

http://www.fingalcoco.ie/minutes/meeting_doc.aspx?id=35899

Lawless, D. (2009) Interview Transcript. [Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council Economic Development and Community Department. Tuesday 29th September 2009] Dublin: Dún Laoghaire.

Lerendu-Brand, N. (2009) Meeting Notes. [Dublin Community Growers. Monday 5th

October 2009] Dublin: Carmelite Community Centre, White Friars Church.

Maguire, C; Curry, R. (2007) Counting What Counts; A Review of Sustainable Development Indicators for Ireland. [Internet], Dublin: Comhar – Sustainable Development Council. Available from World Wide Web:http://www.comharsdc.ie/_files/07_13_Enviro_Counting%20What%20Counts_final.pdfAccessed 5th December 2008.

Mays, T. (2003) A Community Garden for Ballyfermot, in Convergence Magazine 2003. [Internet], Dublin: Cultivate Centre.Available from World Wide Web: http://www.sustainable.ie/convergence/magazine/pdffiles/ACommunityGardenforBallyfermot_TychoMays.pdfAccessed 2nd September 2009.

McEvoy, N (1); Dowling, C (2). (2009) Interview Transcript. [Dublin City Council Parks Department. Monday 7th September 2009] Dublin: Dublin City Council Parks Department, Blessington Basin Depot.

Morrogh, W. (2009a) Meeting Notes. [Dublin Food Growing. Monday 24th August 2009] Dublin: Dublin City Council Civic Offices Wood Quay.

Morrogh, W. (2009b) Interview Transcript. [Dublin City Council Community Development. Monday 27th July 2009] Dublin: Author’s House.

Moss, R. (2009a) Dublin Community Gardens 2009: Interactive Map. [Internet], Dublin: Google Maps. Available from World Wide Web: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=103215808189845021399.000471fd04ae9815e9b26&ll=53.336203,-6.219635&spn=0.250514,0.52803&z=11Accessed 8th November 2009.

Natural Economy Northwest (NENW) programme. (2008)The economic benefits of Green Infrastructure: The public and business case for investing in Green Infrastructure and a review of the underpinning Evidence. [Internet], Warrington: Commissioned from ECOTEC by The Mersey Forest on behalf of Natural Economy Northwest.[Accessed 21st April 2009] Available from World Wide Web: http://www.naturaleconomynorthwest.co.uk/

O’Sullivan, S (1); Fine, D (2); Fine, W (3). (2009) Interview Transcript. [South Circular Road Community Garden. Monday 30th July 2009] Dublin: South Circular Road Community Garden.

- 190

http://www.naturaleconomynorthwest.co.uk/

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=103215808189845021399.000471fd04ae9815e9b26&ll=53.336203,-6.219635&spn=0.250514,0.52803&z=11



http://www.sustainable.ie/convergence/magazine/pdffiles/ACommunityGardenforBallyfermot_TychoMays.pdf

http://www.sustainable.ie/convergence/magazine/pdffiles/ACommunityGardenforBallyfermot_TychoMays.pdf

http://www.comharsdc.ie/_files/07_13_Enviro_Counting%20What%20Counts_final.pdf

Phibsborough_Community_Garden. (2008) Gardens as spaces too....[Internet], riseup.net. [Accessed 21st February 2009] Available from World Wide Web: https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/phibsboro_community_garden/2008-04/msg00000.html

Quayle, M. (1986) Report on Community Gardening in Canada, Vancouver: University of British Columbia, in Hall, D. (1996) Community Gardening as an Urban Planning Issue. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

Roseland, M. (1992) Toward Sustainable Communities: A Resource Book for Municipal and Local Governments. [Internet], Ottawa: National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/13/b9/00.pdfAccessed 14th November 2009.

Sargent, T. (2009) Greens launch allotment and community garden plan in Bloom’s ‘Obama Garden’. [Internet], Dublin: Green Party. Available from World Wide Web: http://trevorsargent.ie/2009/05/29/greens-launch-allotment-and-community-garden-plan-in-blooms-obama-garden/Accessed 14th July 2009.

SDCC. (2004) South Dublin County Council Development Plan 2004-2010. [Internet], Dublin: South Dublin City Council. Available from World Wide Web: http://planning.southdublin.ie/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=152&Itemid=172&lang = Accessed 13th July 2009.

SDCC. (2009a) South Dublin County Council Draft Development Plan 2010-2016. [Internet], Dublin: South Dublin County Council. Available from World Wide Web: http://planning.southdublin.ie/dmdocuments/01-Draft%20Dev%20Plan%20Written%20Statement%202010-2016%20Sept%202009.pdfAccessed 22nd September 2009.

SDCC. (2009b) Allotments. [Internet], Dublin: South Dublin County Council. Available from World Wide Web: http://development.southdublin.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=67Accessed 14th July 2009.

South Circular Road Garden. (2009) South Circular Road Community Food Garden Project. [Internet], Dublin: South Circular Road Garden. [Accessed 6th April 2009] Available from World Wide Web: http://southcirculargarden.blogspot.com

Traynor, A. (2009) Interview Transcript. [Shanganagh Community Development Project. Wednesday 9th September 2009] Dublin: Shanganagh Park House.

United Nations. (1993) Agenda 21. [Internet], New York: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs.Available from World Wide Web: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtmlAccessed 14th September 2009.

- 191

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml

http://southcirculargarden.blogspot.com/

http://development.southdublin.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=67

http://development.southdublin.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=67

http://planning.southdublin.ie/dmdocuments/01-Draft%20Dev%20Plan%20Written%20Statement%202010-2016%20Sept%202009.pdf

http://planning.southdublin.ie/dmdocuments/01-Draft%20Dev%20Plan%20Written%20Statement%202010-2016%20Sept%202009.pdf

http://planning.southdublin.ie/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=152&Itemid=172&lang

http://planning.southdublin.ie/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=152&Itemid=172&lang

http://trevorsargent.ie/2009/05/29/greens-launch-allotment-and-community-garden-plan-in-blooms-obama-garden/




http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/13/b9/00.pdf

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/13/b9/00.pdf

ttps://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/phibsboro_community_garden/2008-0

WCED. (1987) Our Common Future. ed. L. Starke. [Internet], New York: UN, World Commission on Environment and Development. Available from World Wide Web:http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htmAccessed 17th April 2009.

- 192

http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm

Appendix 1: The full list and sequence of questions used within the Public Survey Questionnaire.

This survey concerned the public’s attitude towards community gardening within their neighbourhood. The survey was framed within the concept of “Quality of Life”, and how a community garden might contribute to that “Quality of Life”.The survey consisted of two parts. Part 1 of the survey addressed potential quality of life issues of concern to residents. Part 2 of the survey gauged residents’ perceptions as to how community gardening might contribute to benefiting these quality of life issues. The specific quality of life issues within Part 1 to which the questions within Part 2 impinge upon are noted in brackets after the questions within Part 2.

Example:(Part 2 Question) (Part 1 Questions it relates to)4. Does your house have a garden? (1, 6, 7, 10)

Question Source: For the purposes of referencing the source of a specific question within the following questionnaire, the questions have been colour coded. Where appropriate the text colour of a question correlates to one of the five source documents listed below: Fahy, F. (2008) Galway 21: Implementing the Principlesand Practices of Sustainable Development in Galway City Council. EPA STRIVE Programme 2007–2013.

Fahy, F. (2006) Quality of Life in Galway City: Questionnaire Survey Results by Electoral Division. EPA STRIVE Programme 2007–2013.

Natural Economy Northwest (NENW) programme. (2008)The economic benefits of Green Infrastructure: The public and business case for investing in Green Infrastructure and a review of the underpinning Evidence.

Holland, L (2004) Diversity and connections in community gardens: a contribution to local sustainability. LocalEnvironment, Volume 9, Number 3, pp 285 — 305.

Grayson, R; Campbell, F. (2000) About community gardens. Australian Community Gardens Network.

Hall, D. (1996) Community Gardening as an Urban Planning Issue.

- 193

Phibsborough Community Garden Survey.

I am a DIT postgraduate student surveying the residents of Phibsborough, as part of a research project looking at community gardening in Dublin.This survey is in conjunction with the Great Western Square and District Residents Association project of setting up a community garden in Phibsborough.Back in February 2009, the residents unanimously decided to press ahead with the plan to create a community garden within Phibsborough, adjacent to Great Western Square. This will entail the creation and seasonal upkeep of a garden for, and by the residents of this area.It is appreciated that not all residents were aware of, or able to attend, the Residents Association AGM, where this initiative was discussed.In order to help allow the involvement of all residents in the project it has been decided to conduct this survey. This is in order to: (1) Collect different opinions and ideas from the residents. (2) To ensure that the requirements and wishes of the residents are known. (3) To help collect support and volunteers.

All information is anonymous, being collated together so as to ascertain the preferred direction in which to progress. Some of these survey questions are taken from the EPA Strive 17 Report, conducted to study quality of Life in Galway.

Part 1

(1) Do you feel that Phibsborough is a suitable place to live?

YesNo

(2) Do you feel safe in Phibsborough?

YesNo

(3) Has the neighbourhood improved in the last 2-3 years?

YesNoNot Relevant. Newly arrived in the area.

(4) Are any of the following a significant problem in Phibsborough?

- 194

(a) Litter. Yes No

(b) Dog Fouling. Yes No

(c) Traffic. Yes No

(d) pollution. Yes No

(e) Anti Social Behaviour Yes No

(f) Vandalism Yes No

(g) Noise Yes No

(h) Graffitti Yes No

(i) Neglected land or derelict housing. Yes No

(5) Are the following adequate in Phibsborough? Yes No

(a) recycling services and collections. Yes No

(b) Integration of non nationals Yes No

(c) Community participation Yes No

(d) opportunities to socialise Yes No

(e) Leisure facilities Yes No

(f) Opportunities to exercise Yes No

(g) Appearance and tidiness of the streets Yes No

(6) Is there enough public green space in Phibsborough?

YesNo

- 195

(7) Is this green space adequately managed?

YesNo

(8) Do you have confidence in Local Authority Decisions affecting the area?

YesNo

(9) Are you involved in community groups?

YesNo

(10) How often do you use the local parks and green spaces?

Once a weekOnce a month Once a yearNever

Part 2

1. Would a community garden provide any of the following?

(a) Environmental education. YesNo(4a, 4b, 4d, 6, 7, 10)

(b) Health and well being YesNo(5d, 5e, 5 f, 6, 7, 10)

(c) Skills and training YesNo(5b, 5c, 8)

- 196

(d) Promotion of community ownership YesNo(5b, 5c, 5d, 5e 5f, 5g, 9, 10.)

(e) Community development and cooperation YesNo(5,6,7,8,9)

(f) Leisure and fun. YesNo(5e)

(g) Social Activities YesNo(5d)

(h) Improvement of the area’s appearance YesNo(3, 4, 5g, 7)

(i) Cultural Integration YesNo(5b)

(g) Greater recycling. YesNo(4a, 5a, 5g)

(h) Environmental Benefits YesNo(4i, 5a, 6, 7)

2. Would a composting facility for household vegetable waste be a useful feature of the community garden? (4a, 5a, 5g, 7)

YesNoComments?

3. Are the following activities important for a community garden? (please tick as appropriate). (5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 7, 9)

Gardening events/Competitions: ImportantUn-ImportantChildren’s activities: ImportantUn-ImportantGrowing fruit and vegetables: ImportantUn-ImportantSocial events like garden parties: ImportantUn-ImportantOther Suggestions?

4. Does your house have a garden? (1, 6, 7, 10)

YesNo

- 197

5. Would you be prepared to be involved with a community garden? (5c, 9)

YesNo

6. Would any of the following be useful to get residents involved:

(a) Advice on planting and gardening? YesNo(7, 8)

(b) Meeting with other established community garden groups, for advice, or to experience their events? YesNo(5c, 5d)

(c) Security of land use? YesNo(4, 7, 8)

(d) Access to plants, seeds and tools? Yes No(5a, 9)

(e) Funding ? Yes No(7, 8)

7. Should the community garden be run with formal structures (such as a rota) or be left for residents to engage with as desired? (5c, 5d, 7)

Formalinformal

8. Ideally should individual plots of land be available, or is it better to have a shared area? (5c, 5d, 6, 7)

Individual PlotsShared Area

9. Respondent details. These are to help profile the people interested in being involved with the community garden. All information is anonymous.

Gender: Marital Status Age Group Resident For # of years

male Single no children

Less than 20

Rental

female Single with children

20-40 years

Owner Occupier

Couple no children

40-60 years

Couple with 60+

- 198

Children

10. Any other comments?.......

Please return this completed survey to 1 Allen Terrace, Phibsborough, (See “X” on map).

OrThe Community Garden Post box at the end of Great Western Villa’s, upon the brick wall. (See “X” on map)

OrReturn to the residents association members at the Residents Summer Party in August.

Appendix 2: Participant comments on questions within the survey

Part 1

Question 2: Do you feel safe in Phibsborough?Comments:

(1) More lights needed.

Question 3: Has the neighbourhood improved in the last 2-3 years?Comments:

(1)Not that I can see. Too much traffic.

Question 4: Are any of the following a significant problem in Phibsborough?(e) Anti Social Behaviour:Comments:

(1) Yes, the tramp.

- 199

Question 5: Are the following adequate in Phibsborough? (b) Integration of non nationals:Comments:

(1) No experience of such a situation.

Question 6: Is there enough public green space in Phibsborough?Comments:

(1) Yes, but I would be glad to have more of it.

Question 7: Is this green space adequately managed?Comments:

(2) Yes, but more benches please!

Question 8: Do you have confidence in Local Authority Decisions affecting the area?Comments:

(1) They are good at following up on questions.

Question 9: Are you involved in community groups?Comments:

(1) No, but would like to join. Unable to do so to date due to other commitments.

Part 2

Question 1: Would a community garden provide any of the following?(b) Health and well beingComments:

(1) If it’s visually pleasing

(c) Skills and trainingComments:

(1)Only if it’s of specific interest.

(g) Social ActivitiesComments:

(1)Depends upon the nature of the garden.

(h) Improvement of the area’s appearanceComments:

(1)As long as it is well kept.

- 200

Question 2: Would a composting facility for household vegetable waste be a useful feature of the community garden?Comments:

(1) A necessary part, especially for educational aspect.(2) If adequately policed.(3) Most residents have small or no gardens, i.e. no room for

composting. So communal composting is very useful.(4) It would be a great advantage that would complement the national

strategy.(5) Yes, but difficult to manage composting in such a setting.(6) Useful once it is well advertised and maintained. People need to be

informed of the best way to operate such a facility.(7) Needs to be attended to regularly by those who know how!(8) Would people use it though?(9) Yes, a small amount.(10) Promotes awareness of the importance of recycling, and fosters an

ethos of proper waste disposal, and the importance of the renewal of natural resources.

(11) Would need to be accompanied by a training programme introducing the facility and showing how to use it.

(12) Why doesn’t the city council provide free compost containers?(13) Good education/information needs to be provided for good

use/understanding of composting.(14) More please.

Question 3: Are the following activities important for a community garden? (please tick as appropriate).General Comments:

(1) Engendering a community is so important?(2) Organise a permaculture course between community gardeners and

others.(3) Street planting in pockets beyond the garden location.

Specific Comments on:Gardening events/Competitions:

(1) It’s something to work towards, like Tidy Towns.(2) It is important, but not much for the community garden.

Children’s activities: (1) It gets them into the real world.

Growing fruit and vegetables: (1) But how best to distribute?(2) Who would own them?

- 201

Question 5: Would you be prepared to be involved with a community garden?Comments:

(1) Yes, but hard to balance my own garden demands with my interest in the community garden.

Question 7: Should the community garden be run with formal structures (such as a rota) or be left for residents to engage with as desired?Comments:

(1) Both. I don’t see why both cannot be accommodated.(2) Formal, but with an informal option alongside.(3) Insurance can be a factor!

Question 8: Ideally should individual plots of land be available, or is it better to have a shared area? Comments:

(1) Both. Personally I’d like my own plot for vegetables, but shared plots seem to work also.

(2) Both. I don’t see why both cannot be accommodated.(3) Dependent on size.(4) Both if possible.(5) You need enough land for allotments(6) A shared area to begin with, and depending on participation

individual plots should be introduced.(7) Either.(8) Not enough room for individual plots.

Question 10. Any other comments?.......(1) The community garden off Great wetern Square is a significant asset

to the community, both visually and possibly for social inclusion.(2) Any unoccupied sites in Phibsborough are owned by private

developers. It is unlikely they would allow people to use them.(3) Keep up the good work.(4) Have a farmers market even once a month.(5) Do something about the rubbish outside 189/8 Phibsborough Road.(6) Enforce the law for landlords to keep a specific standard in rental

houses.

- 202

Appendix 3: The full list and sequence of questions used within semi structured Interviews.

Question Source:(Referenced in Blue)

Question Types:(1) Attitudes. (2) Policy and Practice. (3) Wider issues. (4) Recommendations.

Additional Notes:(Notes: …)

Who are the people who are most likely to be involved with community gardening projects? (Question Type: 1 & 3)

What issues commonly prevent participation in community gardening projects? (Prompt: Age, work, children) (El-Sahn, 2004, pp 71, 83) (Question Type: 1 & 3)

Is there any segment of society opposed to community gardening in any given situation? (Question Type: 1)

Community Gardening features within the new Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown county development plan as a policy to provide more sites for Community Gardening. How is this likely to help? (DLRCC, 2009c, p98) (Question Type: 2) (Notes: This question was asked of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Local Authority, and participants, only)

Has it? (Question Type: 2) (Notes: This question was asked of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Local Authority, and participants, only)

Should Community Gardening feature within the County and Local area plans? (Question Type: 2) (Notes: This question was not asked of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Local Authority, and participants, only)

How might this help you? (Question Type: 2) (Notes: This question was not asked of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Local Authority, and participants, only)

Will community gardening feature in the next county development plan? (Question Type: 2) (Notes: This question was not asked of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Local Authority, and participants, only)

Is there any indication of interest, within the local authority, or from other land owners, as to cost savings towards the management of green infrastructure, or derelict land, that can be delivered by community gardening and its management of unused land?

- 203

(Prompt: reduced clean up costs, mowing, passive supervision) (Natural Economy Northwest (NENW) programme, 2008, pp 7, 19, A42) (Question Type: 1 & 2)

Often parks department plants are thrown away, at the end of a season, from planted beds within parks, or from community beds of plants and flowers. Could these be recycled into the community? (Question Type: 1 & 2 & 4)

What experiences have you had with community gardening creating community interaction? (Cahn, 2009) (Question Type: 1)

How important is the use of existing social structures within a community towards the success of a community gardening project? (Question Type: 1)

What lessons have been learned regarding projects that are supported by single social structures versus multiple community social structures? (El-Sahn, 2004, pp 54, 81, 86-87) (Question Type: 1)

Who are you, how do you define yourself as a group? (Question Type: 1) (Notes: This question was asked of community gardening participants, only)

Is it quite egalitarian and organic as to who does what, or are there formal structures for assigning tasks? (Question Type: 1) (Notes: This question was asked of community gardening participants, only)

Is balance ever an issue with local authority led community gardening projects (Prompt: lack of volunteers, lack of continuity) (El-Sahn, 2004, p88) (Question Type: 3)

Have lessons been learned here? (Question Type: 3)

Is there a Local Agenda 21 officer within the local authority, and what is your relationship to it, in terms of the community garden projects? (El-Sahn, 2004, p26) (Question Type: 2)

What has been the experience with community gardening in recent years? Have there been any noticeable successes, failures, or lessons? (Question Type: 3)

Any advice? (Question Type: 3)

Unused land is not in short supply in Dublin. Are there any reasons preventing the use of this land for community gardening? (Question Type: 3)

Can written waivers and permissions be used to circumvent planning blight? (Question Type: 4)Are there any precedents of this happening? (Question Type: 4)

Is public liability insurance an issue with community gardening? (Grayson & Campbell, 2000) (Question Type: 3)

Could Public Liability Insurance be provided by the Local Authorities? (Prompt: like An Taisce do with the green Communities Programme) (Question Type: 4)

- 204

Would such Public Liability Insurance cover both public and private land? (Question Type: 4)

Can you list some negative influences that are discouraging community gardening?(Question Type: 3)

Is the quality of life input from community gardening appreciated across the different local authority departments? (Prompt: particularly in terms of planning decisions, and funding?) (El-Sahn, 2004, p34) (Question Type: 2)

Is there a requirement for greater promotion of the benefits that community gardening provides? (El-Sahn, 2004, pp 50, 94) (Question Type: 3)

How could this be done? (Question Type: 3)

Are there any issues, pertaining to cross departmental responsibility for community gardening, across parks, environment, community development, and planning departments? (Prompt: such as funding, or land use) (El-Sahn, 2004, p51) (Question Type: 2)

Is community gardening a useful environmental initiative for residents? (Prompt: education, life skills, networking, quality of life, community links). (El-Sahn, 2004, p52) (Question Type: 1)

Do community gardening projects encourage community ownership and responsibility? (El-Sahn, 2004, p55) (Question Type: 1)

Do community gardens attract vandalism and littering? (Question Type: 1)

How is the Agenda 21 requirement to make environmental education available to all groups and ages being facilitated? (El-Sahn, 2004, p16) (Question Type: 1)

Is community gardening seen as part of the mix? (Question Type: 1)

What projects or programmes involving community gardening relate to environmental education within the local authority? (Prompt: this is a recommendation of “Sustainable Development: A Strategy for Ireland”) (El-Sahn, 2004, p15) (Question Type: 1)

How should the Local Authority best facilitate community gardening projects?Prescriptive projects, or facilitating existing projects? (Cullen, 2004, p71) (Question Type: 4)

How would you define a community garden? (Question Type: 1)

What role can the local authority play with the community on residents’ needs and requirements, or concerns about community gardening projects? (El-Sahn, 2004, p88) (Question Type: 4)

- 205

How can community gardening be organised or managed to appeal to different age groups? (El-Sahn, 2004, p54) (Question Type: 1 & 3)

Should community gardens be managed in this way? (Question Type: 1 & 3)

Are there draw backs in acquiring funding and patronage from local authorities for community gardening projects? (Question Type: 3)

Can the existence and continuity of the garden initiative consequently become restricted to the project, and its funding time frame? (Question Type: 3)

Would a more sustainable model for community gardening involve applying for funding and resources once the garden is already established and supported by the community? (Question Type: 3)

Are successful community gardening projects community or council led? (El-Sahn, 2004, p32) (Question Type: 3)

Are you aware of the “sustainable residential development in urban areas – guidelines for planning authorities” document (2008) requiring the provision of allotments and community gardens as a qualitative standard? (DEHLG, 2008, p26) (Question Type: 2)

Does the “sustainable residential development in urban areas – guidelines for planning authorities” document (2008) mean that Local Area Plans predating it, or not acting upon it, should then be reappraised? ( Quote: Qualitative standards include: Provision for allotments and community gardens. P26) (DEHLG, 2008, p26) (Question Type: 2)

How would/could the local authority engage with these guidelines? (Question Type: 2)

How do you think that Trevor Sargent’s proposal to introduce an allotment officer into local authorities may help community gardening initiatives? (Sargent, 2009) (Question Type: 2)

In the case of the Streamstown Local Area Plan disallowing a community garden, as the lands are zoned residential, is this a misinterpretation of the county plan (Quote: allotments are to be provided within greenbelt, rural, and agricultural land) (FCC, 2009b) (Question Type: 2) (Notes: This question was asked of Fingal Local Authority only)

Can you list some positive influences that are encouraging community gardening? (Question Type: 1 & 2 & 3)

How many community gardens are there in this local authority area? (Question Type: 3)

Any other comments? (Question Type: 1 & 2 & 3 & 4)

- 206

List of publications.

Moss, R. (2009a) Dublin Community Gardens 2009: Interactive Map. [Internet], Dublin: Google Maps. Available from World Wide Web: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=103215808189845021399.000471fd04ae9815e9b26&ll=53.336203,-6.219635&spn=0.250514,0.52803&z=11Accessed 8th November 2009.

Dublin City Community Forum. (2009) Dublin City Guide to Community Gardening. Ed. R. Moss. Dublin: Department of Community and Enterprise, Dublin City Council.

- 207


