The Role of Community Gardens in the Creation and

Promotion of Social Capital and Community Development.

A Case Study in Dunmanway/West Cork.

BSc(Hons)International Development & Food Policy Dissertation by Dirk Fleischheuer

Student Number: 111719999

Academic Supervisor: Dr Stephen Onakuse

18/03/2015

1

Abstract

The creation of a Community Garden in the West Cork town of Dunmanway in 2013 has led

to an improvement in the economic, physical and socio-economic well-being of many

members of the greater Dunmanway Community. This applies to those community

members who have volunteered in the garden, as well as to other members who have

benefited from the spill-over effects the garden had on the community. The effects created

are both tangible and intangible with the creation of jobs through an employment scheme

arguably the most tangible effect. Other effects are connected to the improved well-being

of community members through better diets, improved food security and food choice.

Improved socio-economic living standards through the creation of social capital as a by-

product of the garden as a meeting and working place were also positive effects. The role of

the community garden as a vehicle for community development in an inclusive manner is

exemplified in the Dunmanway project. It has formed the basis of other community

activities through the provision of produce as well as man-power. The garden has also

served as an intercultural meeting point for a culturally complex community. This study was

conducted during the summer of 2014 and in January and February of 2015 through a

participatory research project in the Dunmanway Community Garden. The study reports on

the development process of the garden and the characteristics since its establishment, but

also contextualises these findings by comparing them to experiences made elsewhere. The

study was undertaken in order to show how the establishment of a community garden

project has wide-ranging benefits for communities in general and how it was beneficial for

the area of Dunmanway in particular. It also established the importance of community

gardens as ideal places for the creation of social capital and the promotion of community

development.

2

Table of Contents

Chapter Side1. Introduction 1.1. Community Garden Projects

55

1.2. Definitions 61.3. Aims and Objectives of the Study 71.4. Expected Outcomes of the Study 81.4. Dunmanway Area Characteristics

2. The Role of Community Gardens: a Literature Review

8

92.1. Overview 92.2. Community Gardens. Characteristics and Activities 102.3. Difficulties and Problems regarding Community Gardens2.4. The typical Community Gardener 2.5. Community Development and its Importance 2.6. Social Capital 2.7. Social Development 3. Methodology3.1. March 2014- August 2015. Field Research3.2. January 2015-February 2015. Interviews3.3. The Sample3.4. November 2014-March 2015. Secondary Research3.5. Limitations of this Study

4. Findings and Analysis4.1. The Situation before the Garden4.2. The Aims of the Garden4.3. The Creation of the Garden and the Utilisation of local Networks4.4 The Role of the Dunmanway Family Resource Centre as a Facilitator of the Garden4.5. Dunmanway Community Garden Characteristics4.6. The Community and How it benefitted from the Garden4.7. Difficulties and Problems during the Creation and Facilitation of the Garden4.8. The Future of the Garden4.9. Analysis

5. Conclusion

Bibliography (including key informants via interviews) Appendix

1314151618191920202122

23232424262728303131

37

40

44

3

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank everyone who made this paper possible: My lecturers over the past

four years who not only taught me about their specific areas of expertise, but who also

helped me to learn more about myself. Especially Dr Edward Lahiff and Mr Mike Fitzgibbon

always had an open ear for any kind of problems and questions. A great thank you to all the

people of the Dunmanway Community Garden project: Ita, Tracy, Charlie, Maria, Selvi,

Angie and all the others who patiently answered my questions. Also I would like to say thank

you to all my friends I made in college for the craíc and the coffees. Finally, the biggest thank

you goes out to my wife Mary who supported me throughout those four years and without

whom I would never have made it.

4

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1. Community Garden Projects

Community Gardens are an important source of tangible and intangible benefits to the local

Community (Smith & Parpia, 2014) and are made-up by a piece of land gardened,

maintained and controlled by a group of mainly volunteer people who usually live in the

area and not by local governments (Dictionary.com, 2014; Ecolife, 2011). Community

gardens provide nutritious food, preserve green space and are an important vehicle for

community and social development through the stimulation of social interaction. They can

also be important in the educational process of the community, especially of children. They

do so by improving knowledge regarding nutrition and food origins and foster

neighbourhood development by bridging cultural and generational gaps. Further to that

they can reduce the food budgets of participants and can generate exercise and recreation

opportunities (Smith & Parpia, 2014). Overall can community gardens therefore contribute a

healthy life style through the promotion of good nutrition, physical activity and the

enhancement of social cohesion (Blaine et al, 2010) While individual gardening projects may

vary in what they offer, the issues of education, health, food security and community

development seem to be of particular importance when it comes to the study of the social

dimensions of community gardens (Ferris et al, 2001).

The importance of community gardens is arguably widely acknowledged however, it should

also be acknowledged that they face a number of challenges. The long-term survival of such

projects often seems to be jeopardised by expiring land-leases, financial difficulties and

other uncertainties (Harris, 2015). Other challenges include theft and vandalism (Hirsch,

2013) and environmental threats (Kim et al, 2014).

5

1.2. Definitions

In this paper the terms “social development”, “social capital” and “community

development” will be repeatedly referred to. The working definition of “social capital”

“social development” and “community development” for the purpose of this paper are as

follows:

Social capital: The network of social connections that exist between people and their

shared views and norms of behaviour, which enable and encourage mutually

advantageous social cooperation. (TheFreeDictionary, 2014)

Francis argues that the creation of social capital is usually the by-product of activities made

in order to reach economic or other targets and not created through conscious activities.

Nevertheless, social capital can be destroyed through abuse or disuse. (Francis, 2002) In this

study I will explore how the participating and non-participating members of the Dunmanway

community in West Cork have benefited from the creation of a community garden in their

town and how the garden created social capital among the project’s participants.

Social development: … is about putting people at the centre of development. This

means a commitment that development processes need to benefit people

particularly, but not only, the poor, also recognizing that people, and the way they

interact in groups and society, and the norms that facilitates such interaction, shape

development processes. (ISS, 2004)

Social development is less concerned with economic targets and can instead be defined as

an interactive process of socio-economic changes which focuses on improvements in

nutrition, education, health and standards of living. (Pavlov, 2014; Midgley, 2013) Likewise

does research on the influences of social networks suggests that the provision of social

support through such networks influences the well-being of individuals. (Zhu et al, 2013)

Community Development: Community development is a process where community

members come together to take collective action and generate solutions to common

problems. Community wellbeing (economic, social, environmental and cultural)

often evolves from this type of collective action being taken at a grassroots level.

6

Community development ranges from small initiatives within a small group to large

initiatives that involve the broader community. (PeerNetBC, n.d.)

Based on the above definitions it seems obvious that the concepts and goals of social

capital, social development and community development are similar. All three focus on

people and their well-being. They arguably vary somewhat in their approaches to this

common goal. While social capital is often created through activities that are directed at

other targets, social and community development targets are usually much more clearly

defined in approach, outcome and beneficiaries. It could therefore be argued that social

and/or community development projects also create social capital as a by-product, while

the creation of social capital on the other hand does not automatically lead to social and/or

community development.

1.3. Aims and Objectives of this Study

The overall objective of this study is to show how the establishment of a community garden

project has wide-ranging benefits for communities in general and how it is beneficial for the

greater Dunmanway community in particular. By doing so, I hope to promote the creation of

similar new projects and the long-term continuation of already existing projects.

In greater detail, the aims and objectives of this paper are to examine in which way and to

what extent the community garden in the West Cork town of Dunmanway has facilitated

the creation and maintenance of social capital and community development in the local

area, while at the same time I will explore how the concepts of community development

and social networking were utilised by the organisers and participants of the Dunmanway

project. I will examine whether participating members of the community have made

positive experiences through the activities provided by the management group of the

garden and/or through actions that were initiated by the participants themselves. Further I

will inspect if the active participation in the project has led to a perceived improvement in

“embeddedness” of the participants in the community and whether the project is of an

inclusive or exclusive nature. Lastly I will explore whether the community of Dunmanway

has experienced tangible or intangible benefits through the creation and the running of the

garden project and in which way such potential benefits had been envisioned by the project

management group as part of a community development processes.

7

1.4. Expected Outcomes of the Study

Based on secondary research and my work in the Dunmanway community garden in the

spring and summer of 2014 I expect this study to show that the creation and establishment

of the community garden has made a positive impact on the community and its citizens. This

should manifest itself in tangible benefits such as the creation of employment opportunities,

improved food security and the reduction of food budgets especially for socially

disadvantaged families. I also expect to see a rise in intangible benefits such as the

perceived well-being of participating community members and increased and stronger ties

across the social network of the project participants.

1.5. Dunmanway Area Characteristics

The town of Dunmanway represents the geographical centre of the West Cork region and

the planning of the town dates back to the 17 th century. There are a number of established

translations to its Irish name, the most common being “the castle of the yellow river”, “the

castle on the little plain”, “the fort of the gables” and “the fort of the yellow man”

(Dunmanway.ie, n.d.). The total population of Dunmanway Town in 2011 was 1585 people.

The percentage of non-Irish residents was 8.2% compared to a national average of 12%. The

unemployment rate was 19.4% compared to the national rate of 19% (CSO, 2011). The

Environs of Dunmanway town are comprised by 22 electoral divisions and the total

population of Dunmanway and its hinterland was 13,470 in 2011. A three year strategic plan

on community development for the region was published by the Dunmanway Family

Resource Centre (DFRC) in 2013. In it the DFRC identified some key issues impacting on the

people living in the greater Dunmanway area. Among those are: Lack of employment,

education and meaningful activities as well as lack of emotional support for adults and

young people. Furthermore, lack of accessible public transport contributes to the exclusion

and isolation of the most disadvantaged people in the community. Another characterising

aspect of Dunmanway is its large alternative lifestyle community, which is mainly located in

the Cool Mountain area. Particularly the younger people of this community suffer from a

lack of integration (DFRC, 2013).

8

Chapter 2

The Role of Community Gardens: A Literature Review:

2.1. Overview

The majority of literature on community gardens and their implications to the local

community stems from sources in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia. This is

why I have focussed my own research on the town of Dunmanway in order to establish

whether the experiences and impacts described in the literature from oversees can also be

observed in Ireland and if so in which way they influenced the Dunmanway community.

Community gardens are generally viewed as beneficial to the community and to the

gardeners (Ferris et al, 2001; Smith, 2014). The main body of literature in relation to the

subject seems to focus on sustainability and how gardening participants can (re)engage and

(re)connect with the food system and the landscape in sustainable ways (Turner, 2011). In

addition to that, the social aspects of community gardens seem to be mainly explored in the

context of the “double benefit” they provide. Namely the growing and subsequent

consumption of healthy organic food while at the same time removing the dependence on

unhealthy alternatives (McIlvaine-Newsad & Porter, 2013). Potential negative aspects focus

on risks associated with work in the gardens, such as the potential risks to gardeners

through contaminated soils (Kim et al, 2014), on accessibility of gardens in urban

neighbourhoods (Wang et al, 2014) and on problems such as theft and cultural conflicts

among participants (Hirsch, 2013).

The concept of social capital in general has been widely explored, most notably by Putman

whom I use as the main point of reference during the section on social capital in this

literature review. Other fields of academic literature in relation to this paper are mainly

concerned with social networks and provide some insight into the role of social networks in

relation to perceived well-being (Zhu et al, 2013). Due to the relatively small number of

stakeholders in the Dunmanway project I have attempted to take a more holistic approach

in my study and talk about all those fields of study in relation to the Dunmanway project.

9

2.2. Community Gardens: Characteristics and Activities

Community gardens can be found in many countries and in rural as well as urban areas. A

clear-cut definition of what is a community garden is arguably difficult and not necessarily

beneficial to the study of such gardens as the individual characters of these gardens can be

quite diverse and are generally shaped by the local responses to local needs (Ferris et al,

2001). There is also a difference between collective gardens where participants work jointly

in a larger area towards common goals and allotment gardens where gardeners rent a

smaller parcel within a larger lot (Alaimo et al, 2000). What all community gardens have in

common and what is their distinguishing feature when compared to private gardens is that

they are open to the public, owned by the public and controlled by the public in a

democratic manner (Ferris et al. 2001).

In a study carried out by Ferries et al in 1997 the researchers found that most of the

following main activities were present in the majority of gardens visited and that community

gardens typically function as:

Leisure/recreational gardens for people without gardens (Ferris et al, 2001). A prime

example of these types of gardens can be found on the outskirts of many Austrian, Swiss

and German cities, the so called “Schrebergärten”. These small plots of land were initially

established in Leipzig in the mid-19th century to teach children the basics of gardening. In

present days they form a retreat for people without their own garden and by leasing a plot

in the garden it provides them with a recreational space for their weekends (Der Spiegel,

2006). Further do these gardens take on an important role in the creation of social

networks, especially for older people (Gebhard, 2013).

School/educational gardens which seek to combine gardening activities, such as soil

preparation, planting, harvesting and composting, with the school curriculum. (Ferris et al,

2001). Originating in schoolyards across the world, schools used these gardens as a

classroom extension to teach children about the origins of their food and to pass on

agricultural knowledge and gardening skills. In many cases the produce of these gardens

may also provide the basis of a nutritional school lunch (Green Heart Education, 2007). The

concept of such agricultural and gardening education can have far reaching socio-ecological

effects, as the various elements of an ecosystem are interdependent. Young students

10

learning about nutritional values of certain foods might well initiate changes in the eating

habits of their families while at the same time better nutrition might positively affect

academic performance (Ozzer, 2007).

Entrepreneurial gardens aim to alleviate (food)poverty and social exclusion (Ferris et al,

2001). Usually these goals are achieved through the distribution and donations of garden

produce to local charities and/or low-income families. By doing so, the donating and

distributing community members not only improve food security but also actively create

positive change within their community (Hoffman & Doody, 2014).

Crime diversion gardens are targeted (among others) at people who try to reintegrate into

society and overcome the stigma of prison and criminal records. This type of community

garden is often found in the U.S. They aim to involve the local community, especially local

young people in the production of local organic vegetables which are then sold to local

residents. In collaboration with official office holders, such as Mayors etc, these gardens can

offer wages and those keeping young people away from crime and drugs (Ferris et al, 2001).

Healing and therapy gardens for those suffering from mental illness and/or seeking

rehabilitation and full social inclusion (Ferris et al, 2001). The healing and therapeutic effects

of a garden are mainly attributed to it being a space where people can experience a

restorative influence through the gardens serene, safe and green atmosphere, but also

through the horticultural activities and the chance to experience nature more closely, while

for other people it can also be a combination of both (Siegsdotter & Grahn, n.d.). Various

empirical studies have identified and proven the recuperative potential and therapeutic

value that community gardens can give to communities recovering from trauma and

disaster such as the Columbine High School shooting (Hofmann & Doody, 2014).

Neighbourhood pocket parks are usually located in residential areas, often with playgrounds

and flower beds established by and for the local residents (Ferris et al, 2001). Studies in the

U.S. have shown that such park areas in residential neighbourhoods are beneficial to the

health of local residents as they encourage exercise, and can improve water and air quality.

At the same time can such recreational spaces have economic impacts on the

neighbourhood they are located in, as they can increase the value of nearby property

(American Trails, 2010).

11

Ecological restoration gardens are gardens in which waterways that have been enclosed in

concrete culverts are being restored to their natural state.

Demonstration gardens are gardens which cover similar educational topics as the school

gardens, but are targeted towards the adult population (Ferris et al, 2001).

Ferries based the categorisation of community gardens according to their main

characteristics on research conducted within the greater San Francisco area, but as Ferries

points out and as I have exemplified, these characteristics can also be found in other areas

worldwide. Many of these characteristics of community gardens can indeed be found in the

Dunmanway Community garden as I will establish later in this paper.

Regardless of the characteristics that may be emphasised in a community garden, the over-

arching principle is the promotion of economic, ecological, physical and socio-cultural

sustainability. Physical and ecological sustainability is promoted through the growing of

local, safe, fresh and pre-dominantly organic food. Social and cultural sustainability is

fostered in the community space as it provides the basis for cultural interactions. Economic

sustainability is promoted through the provision of a space that can function as

demonstration and teaching site for horticultural techniques and innovative technologies

(Turner, 2011).

The sites on which community gardens are established are usually publicly owned by city or

county councils. The proprietors of the gardens sign a lease which clarifies the terms of use.

The gardens can be created through grassroots initiatives or through facilitated initiatives.

Socio, cultural and ecological diversity are of importance in community gardens as they

provide a space where people from different cultures and backgrounds can meet (Madlener,

2009).

The benefits of such projects do not only apply to the community gardeners but can also

affect non-community gardeners for example through the distribution of food to such

gardeners, to food banks or to other members of the community. The provision of such

services may in return be very meaningful to donating gardeners thereby not only

promoting the community’s development but also alleviating food insecurity and social

exclusion (McIlvaine-Newsad, 2013). Not only can such actions help to fight food insecurity

12

they also promote food choice as the recipients of the, mostly organic, produce benefit from

a more nutritious and healthier diet (Hoffman & Doody, 2014). Community gardens are

therefore providing an ideal vehicle for the promotion of sustainable living and the

(re)connection of the individual and the community to the socio-cultural importance of food

(Turner, 2011). At the same time the community garden acts as a catalyst which empowers

the members of the community to actively participate in the improvement and

development of their community while improving their mental well-being. This process can

also serve as a broad definition of community development in general (Hoffman & Doody,

2014).

Many community gardens are also viewed as a political space by its volunteers. They regard

their involvement as a political statement by changing their community themselves rather

than relying on help from official political actors. Such changes can be of a physical nature,

through the creation of green spaces, but also of a more socio-economic nature with the

garden taking on a role of a multi-cultural meeting place where active inclusion into society

is taking place (Madlener, 2009; Bütikofer, 2012).

2.3. Difficulties and Problems regarding Community Gardens

One of the most commonly encountered problems of community gardens seems to be the

problem of theft, both from the outsiders and fellow gardeners. This problem however

seems to be more prevalent in gardens where the participants work on individual plots,

while gardens with community areas do not experience a lot of food theft. A communal area

within a garden that otherwise consists of individual plots might therefore be an

appropriate tool to discourage individuals from stealing their fellow gardeners produce

(Hirsch, 2013). Wang et al focus on the existence of community gardens in a spatial context

by considering the accessibility of such gardens for people who lack access to nutritious and

affordable food. Based on a study carried out in Edmonton, Canada Wang concluded that

community gardens often cluster with supermarkets and that people who cannot easily

reach a supermarket also experience difficulties in getting to and from community gardens

(Wang et al, 2014). Other frequently encountered problems are inter-cultural clashes

between gardeners which are often rooted in minor differences of beliefs, such as when the

best time for watering plants is (Hirsch, 2013). While the health benefits of gardening are

13

well documented and related literature arguably makes up the bulk of academic writing on

the subject of community gardening there can also be a health risk associated with

gardening. This is most pronounced in spaces whose histories might not always be fully

known to the gardener. Especially in urban settings the gardener might be exposed to soil

contaminations such as chemicals, heavy metals and asbestos. Urban community gardens

might also be closer located to sources of pollution such as roads and/or industrial areas.

Such gardeners are potentially at risk to unintentionally inhale and/or ingest contaminated

soil with children being at a higher potential risk as they tend to put their fingers and hands

into their mouths more frequently (Kim et al, 2014).

2.4. The typical community gardener

In 2009 Blaine, Parwinder, Ashley and Snider carried out a study in the U.S. city of Cleveland

Ohio attempting to profile the typical community gardener. They established that

participants in community gardens come, generally speaking, from all age groups and

income classes. However the participation age peaks in the 50 – 59 year age group. One

reason for this could be the level of physical activity associated with gardening. For people

of a younger age this level of activity might not be enough and they might seek other, more

challenging activities. On the other hand, the physical demands in relation to gardening

could be too high for people from older age groups. In relation to income levels the study

showed that there was a diminishing participation the higher people’s income was. The

researchers suggested two possible explanations for this: people of a higher income class

moved away from the urban area where the study was carried out, and/or people who earn

more money have more professional and private commitments and less time for community

gardening. Further to that the study established that participation by gender was relatively

equal with 58% female and 42% male participants. Most community gardeners were found

to walk to their gardens with 82% living less than 15 minutes away. (Blaine et al, 2010)

14

2.5. Community Development and its Importance

Community development is one of the most important determinants of health and well-

being. Evidence shows that physical improvements to a neighbourhood, such as improved

social housing facilities and/or efficiently designed parks, must be accompanied by

improvements to the social structure of the community. If the people of the community

have no sufficient input in the creation and management of such improvements the overall

beneficial results of such projects will be less than optimal (Syme & Ritterman 2009). This

arguably applies to the physical as well as to the social capital of a community. The act of

volunteering for a project like a community garden can benefit individuals mentally, socially

and psychologically because it strengthens the neighbourly relations. Volunteering fosters

respect for the common good, creating empathy, trust and tolerance for others and leads to

social integration among the volunteers. The personal validation of the individual as a useful

member of the community might also be established through the volunteering process as

he/she sees him/herself as someone who can make a difference (Ohmer et al, 2009). By

empowering the residents of a community in such a manner they are given the tools to

identify the potential for, and the stimulation and maintenance of improvements. In the

context of community gardens one area of improvement that needs to- and can be

addressed by the gardens is the need for a healthier and more nutritious diet for many

people. Furthermore, gardening activities can increase the psychological and physical well-

being of, among others, elderly community members. This is due to an increased contact

with plants, which has been identified as therapeutic, and through improved fitness levels

through the physical activities associated with gardening. Other areas of community

development might address social needs such as transport to social activities and/or

doctor’s appointments and general care and emotional support (Hofmann & Doody, 2014).

15

2.6. Social Capital

One of the leading researchers on the subject of social capital is arguably Robert D. Putnam,

who argues that the first known use of the concept was introduced by E.J. Hanafin in 1916.

Hanafin’s concept of social capital, as well as the concepts of those who followed him in this

particular field of research, is the idea that social ties make the lives of people more

productive. Hanafin argued that the individual is socially helpless if left to himself/herself

and that therefore social intercourse, sympathy and fellowship are the tangible substances

that make up social units. If an individual comes into contact with other members of the

community social capital accumulates and with it the potential of improvements for the

individual and the entire community, increases. The individual will experience fellowship,

help and sympathy through the community, while the community as a whole will profit from

the cooperation among the individuals. Putnam argues further that the principle of

reciprocity is the cornerstone of social capital. People extend a favour to others without

expecting it to be returned immediately. They might even do so without knowing the

individual, but they are reasonably convinced that at some point in the future this person,

or someone else they might not know, will return the favour. A society buying into the

concept of reciprocity and trust works more efficiently than one whose members are

isolated and distrustful, because trust and honesty overcome the resistances of social life

(Putnam, 2000).

The benefits of social capital have been widely recognised, there is however some

discussion as to how to generate social capital most effectively. Alaimo et al describes two

approaches to the creation of social capital: the individual approach or the community

approach. With the individual approach, social capital is created through the development

and increase of social networks for the individual through the individual. This means that

such programmes are designed to attract as many people from the community as possible

thereby promoting trust, norms and networking. In other words: the community or the

neighbourhood are also creators of social ties. With the community approach, on the other

side, activities and events are created by (outside)facilitators in which fewer people might

be targeted and participate, but whose benefits might spill over to non-participants (Alaimo

et al, 2010).

16

In this context Bütikofer presents an interesting argument. She argues that the basis for

volunteerism and the creation of social capital is the individual’s interest in the quality of

public life in his/her neighbourhood (Bütikofer, 2012). Putnam argues that reciprocity and

trust are the cornerstones of social capital. This argument is supported by Bütikofer who

further argues that persons with a strong belief in trust believe that the cooperation with

others will lead to mutual benefits. At the same time they believe that the most important

factor in the creation of social capital is the actual voluntary involvement in a project aimed

at the improvement of public quality of life. These three concepts of interest in the quality

of public life, trust and actual involvement are the key ingredients for the creation of social

capital and without them community gardens cannot be established. This means that the

initiators and volunteers involved in a community garden project must already have an

interest in mutually advantageous cooperation as the creation of such a project demands

significant efforts by the individuals involved. At the same time, it is of importance that the

initiators are able to motivate others to join. A certain amount of social capital is therefore

necessary in order to establish a project like a community garden (Bütikofer, 2012).

While community gardens are places that can promote physical well-being through good

nutrition and physical activity, they also generate social benefits. During a study of

community gardens in New York the gardeners stated that they saw their gardens more as

social meeting places rather than agricultural production sites (Alaimo et al, 2010). This

supports Francis’ argument that the creation of social capital is usually the by-product of

activities undertaken to achieve other goals (Francis, 2002). These goals are defined by

common interests which are often associated with free time activities such as clubs, theatre

groups and sports teams. They can also be found in bars, at parties or, as explored in this

paper, community gardens. It is therefore important to view the social capital of a

community in the social context of this community i.e. the infrastructure which facilitates

the individual’s and collective actions (Glover, 2004). Community gardens can build social

capital through the creation of a social network which is needed to successfully manage the

garden. In many community gardens culturally diverse communities come together. They

learn gardening skills from each other and produce local, usually organic food with low

ecological costs. They exchange information about each other, their cultures and the

vegetables grown in these cultures. Eventually food and recipes may be shared and a social

17

network that stretches across cultural divisions can flourish. The community therefore

benefits in a multidimensional manner, namely through improved human, ecological,

economic and social capital (Hancock, 1999).

However, it is also important to understand that social capital can have negative side-

effects. These side-effects mainly affect those people who are outside of a social network

and might even be targeted by a network that, despite their buying into the concept of

reciprocity, has an anti-social agenda. Organisations such as the Ku Klux Klan or more

contemporary terrorist organisations spring to mind. If social capital is exploited it can be

used to support malevolent intentions. One must also distinguish between inclusive and

exclusive dimensions of social capital. Exclusive social networks tend to look towards the

inside of their network only, thereby reinforcing homogenous groups and identities.

Inclusive social networks look towards the outside and try to bridge social divides and

differences (Putnam, 2000).

2.7. Social Development

Poverty is not only the lack of sufficient financial means. It is also about isolation, exclusion

and vulnerability of affected people. Social development therefore focuses on the people in

its developmental processes through the promotion of inclusion and security (World Bank,

2014). While the concept of social development has certainly been acknowledged as an

important aspect of developmental processes there seems to be little literature that

explores it in the context of community gardening. Existing literature seems to focus mainly

on the role community gardens can take on in the empowerment of women in developing

countries. For the purpose of this study such literature is arguably less relevant. It also

appears that the concepts of social development and social capital overlap to a certain

extent as they both promote inclusion and trust and are very much people orientated. In

this study, I wish to exemplify how the community garden in Dunmanway has helped

individuals in the process of inclusion into the community.

18

Chapter 3

Methodology

The technique used to carry out this study was a combination of qualitative primary and

qualitative secondary research. This involved participatory field research and the study of

relevant existing literature of the fields related to the aims of this study.

3.1. March 2014 – August 2014 Field Research

For the purpose of this study I decided to carry out qualitative research in the field to obtain

primary data and to gather secondary qualitative data through the review of literature

resources. The research process in the field mainly took place in the spring and summer of

2014 and in January and February of 2015. From March 2014 until August 2014 I carried out

my student placement with the Cork Environmental Forum (CEF). This placement is an

essential part of my degree. The CEF is an organisation that fosters communication and

collaboration between stakeholders in environmental development processes. It brought

me in contact with the Dunmanway Community Garden project as it carried out an advisory

role in the steering group of the garden. In the garden I carried out hands on work such as

fertilizing, seeding, and tending to vegetable beds. I also represented my placement host in

the meetings of the garden’s steering group which gave me an inside view of the

management processes. During the actual work in the garden I would often have informal

talks with other volunteers. I did not actively seek such conversations with the intention of

using their contents for this paper but they provided me with interesting information that

developed my interest in the topic. Therefore, I would best describe my research method

with the concept of “field research” which involves interaction (participation, observation

and communication) as a standard process. During this research method the researcher

develops a relationship with his object of study which may vary in its intensity, stretching

from informal chats with some participants of the project on to formal interviews with

others. The results of this research method therefore reflect the way in which the study was

carried out (Fleck, 2013).

19

3.2. January 2015 – February 2015 Interviews

During January and February 2015 I carried out a number of interviews with various

stakeholders in the project. These stakeholders included: active and passive participants in

the projects, such as gardening volunteers, neighbours, community workers and other

professionals, such as gardeners who were involved in the project. The interviews took

place on a weekly basis in the garden. In these interviews I focussed on the social diversity

in the makeup of the garden with the aim of establishing as to whether it is representative

of the Dunmanway area. I also examined if working in the garden has brought diverse

people closer together. Further, I focussed on the motivations and expectations for

community gardening of the individual participants and explored whether the participants

motivations and expectations where successfully met. In addition to that I researched

whether food insecurity was a reason that led to the establishment of the garden and /or to

the involvement of individual participants. I also examined if the produce from the garden

has been used to alleviate food insecurity. Further I asked questions related to the

experiences made by the interviewee in relation to the volunteering process. Other, more

general questions were related to demographic details of the interviewee such as

nationality and age. Background information about the social composition of the community

was obtained through the Dunmanway Family Resource Centre (DFRC) which is the founding

and managerial organisation of the project. Some of the interview questions were only put

to the management staff of the garden. These questions revolved around management and

planning issues. A complete list of questions can be found in the appendix.

3.3. The sample

As previously explained I recruited the interview sample from the regular stakeholders

involved in the day to day running of the project. In total I interviewed nine individuals, six

of which are volunteers. Two persons are working in the DFRC and are managing the project

and one individual is the resident gardener who tends to the garden approximately four

hours a week depending on the seasons and the workload. Of the six volunteers two live in

close proximity to the garden, so they not only reflected on their experiences as volunteers

but also on those experiences they made as neighbours. At the same time the DFRC workers

also engage in gardening activities, so that their reflections on the project are likewise two-

20

dimensional. The sample of interviewees is certainly quite small, but the interviewed

individuals represent the nucleus of the Dunmanway community garden project. On every

occasion I visited the garden these were the people I encountered, worked with and talked

to. They were therefore in an ideal position to answer my questions in depth and to reflect

on the development of the project in the best possible manner. Other volunteers did show

up on occasions, but their input into the project was accordingly smaller. Even though I had

informal chats with these volunteers their input into this study is mainly of a background

nature. I mention this in order to avoid misunderstandings in relation to the total numbers

of volunteers. This study is therefore not an attempt to gather empirical data on the role of

community gardens in the creation of social capital and community development, but rather

an attempt to exemplify the theories and concepts of community development and social

capital creation in the case of the Dunmanway gardening project.

3.4. November 2014- March 2015 Secondary research

In order to give a broader overview of the topic and to gain a wider understanding in the

area of community development and social capital creation through community gardens I

undertook extensive secondary research. This research was done in the fields of

Development Studies, Environment Studies, Social Policies and Networks as well as

Ecological Anthropology. In more detail this means that I searched for peer reviewed articles

on community gardens, but also for community garden web sites in order to contextualise

what these gardens encompass. I also searched for peer reviewed articles on community

development, social capital and social development to provide the reader with a clear

understanding of these concepts and how they are related to the activities in community

gardens and by extension to this study. The findings of this research are of importance in

order to contextualise my research findings in Dunmanway. The secondary research also

provided insight as to whether my findings are similar to those made in other studies

relating to other projects of similar nature but in different regions.

21

3.5. Limitations of the study

The most obvious limitation of this study is the small sample. Apart from the small sample

they are other factors that could be considered as limitations to this study. As described

earlier I carried out primary research as a volunteer in the Dunmanway community garden.

By doing so I almost became a member of the community myself. While this methodology

gives an excellent and specific insight into the developments of the community garden

project in Dunmanway it may not be representative for other areas and communities in

Ireland. Such a participatory approach also bears the danger of losing objectiveness. I am of

the opinion that I have maintained my objectiveness regarding the developments in

Dunmanway. However it must be said that due to the relatively close relationship I

established with some of the regular volunteers I felt uncomfortable asking question in

relation to their socio-economic nature such as income. The relatively small number of

participating interviewees limits the representativeness of the study somewhat. It does in

my opinion however give a more detailed insight into the motivations and reflections of the

individual participant.

22

Chapter 4

Findings and Analysis

Dunmanway Community Garden

4.1. The Situation before the Garden

Before the establishment of the garden the site in the Tonafora area of Dunmanway was a

derelict, brown-field, waste site with weeds growing knee high. It was described by one of

the volunteers who lives in immediate proximity as “not nice to live next to”. People would

use the site for illegal dumping and sometimes for outdoor drinking sessions. Balls from the

neighbouring five-a-side football pitch would get lost in the high weeds and the area’s

overall reputation suffered as a consequence. Apart from a shortcut that led through the

plot the area did not experience any footfall by non-neighbours. The establishment of the

garden changed the characteristics significantly. The same volunteer, who had stated that

she did not experience the site as a nice place prior to the creation of the garden, now

experiences it as a much more positive place and would “not move for anything”. At the

same time she felt that the respect for the area had increased as well as the reputation of

the area. This seems to manifest itself in an increase in people using the area for leisure

activities such as walking (Horgan & Horgan, 2015). The garden is still used as a short cut by

the local population and the gardeners do not which to change this as they feel it is in the

best interest of the community to establish the garden as an accessible open part of the

community. The decision as to whether a fence should be erected around the garden was

therefore discussed at length and in the end the garden committee decided to erect a fence

“that is not keeping anyone out”. This resulted in a small fence being erected by the

members of the local men shed with the gates placed strategically in the path of the short

cut leading through the site. While these gates are closed when there are no activities in the

garden they are never locked and the fence can fulfil its main purpose which is to keep

roaming dogs out. Likewise, the doors to the poly tunnel are left unlocked and the

gardeners have so far not experienced any theft or vandalism (Harris, 2015).

23

4.2 .The Aims of the Garden

According to the three year strategic plan of the Dunmanway family Resource Centre (DFRC)

the goal of the community garden is:

“… to engage local families and groups in sharing and learning skills to promote healthy

eating and well-being and to provide opportunities for growing and cooking food in a fun,

sustainable and inclusive way. This will promote positive family and community

relationships which will reduce isolation, promote well-being and reflect cultural diversity”

(DFRC, 2013).

4.3. The Creation of the Garden and the Utilisation of Local Networks

The interest in the creation of a community garden as tool for community development

came from the management group of the DFRC and matured in 2012, during which the

DFRC applied for funding from Safe Food Ireland, a body committed to the promotion of

safe and nutritious food across Ireland. The potential site for the garden was easily

identified as it lies between the two local facilities of the DFRC and would often be passed

by the staff and patrons of the DFRC. Once the funding was in place the DFRC was able to

interest a group of locals, who had previously been involved in a different gardening

programme in the West Cork area, in volunteering for the Dunmanway Community Garden

project. In the summer of 2013 the work started (Harris, 2015). At the beginning of the

transformation process from brown-field site to gardening area was the cutting of the grass

through the volunteer group. This was done in small manageable steps as the cutting and

trimming of one acre of weeds and grass would arguably de-motivate even the most

dedicated volunteer. Once a small plot of land was cleared the DFRC initiated a number of

workshops where the volunteers could express their ideas regarding the lay-out and

characteristics of the garden on a small scale basis. During these workshops the overall

approach to gardening was also established. The steering group, made up by DFRC

management and volunteers, decided to take an organic, practical gardening approach

based on seasons with the application of mulching techniques to retain soil moisture and

suppress weeds. It was also agreed to erect signage in order to explain what was going on in

the garden to interested outsiders (Harris & Iyilikci, 2015).

24

What followed was the continuous development and transformation of the site on a step

by step basis. Once a section of the site was cleared from weeds, grass and stones the

infrastructure of the garden could be put in place. During this process local and individual

networks were utilised. One volunteer had contacts in the local county council and was able

to organise spare gravel for pathways within the garden. Another volunteer had contacts to

a horse owner and could provide horse manure for fertilizing purposes and yet another

volunteer owned a van and could shuttle tools and equipment to and from the garden

(Iyilikci, 2015). Resident gardener Selvi Iyilicki describes the policy of one step at a time as

extremely important for the creation and realisation of a project like the Dunmanway one. It

allows the volunteers to learn certain skills, pick up bits of information in relation to

gardening and to see what works in the garden and what doesn’t. The step by step

approach also avoids the “overstretching” of budget and human resources and keeps the

project manageable, while small cultivated areas serve as good examples for successful

gardening (Iyilikci, 2015). By the end of 2013 a number of raised beds had been established

in the garden, trees had been planted as well as shrubs and a hedge around the outside

perimeter fence. This was also the time to decide what to plant in the following spring. The

volunteers and the DFRC had a joint impact in this decision. As some of the garden produce

was to be used in the local meals on wheels and community meals project, staple foods

such as carrots, onions and potatoes were chosen. The influence of an Italian volunteer led

to the decision to plant Italian herbs such as Basil and Oregano (Harris & Iyilikci, 2015). The

first seeding of many plants had to be done in a centre for practical sustainability in nearby

Enniskeane as the construction of the poly tunnel was delayed and only finalised in late

spring of 2014. During this time fruit trees were planted as well. Once the poly tunnel was

set up seedlings could be transferred into the tunnel and with continuous weeding going on

over the summer, the first harvest in the autumn of 2014 soon approached. In the winter of

2014 another significant step for the garden was taken with the construction of a patio area

which serves as a meeting point for the volunteers and other locals (Iyilikci, 2015).

25

As a practical example of the activities in the garden I would like to use the gardening

schedule for the first six month of 2015 as established by resident gardener Selvi Iyilikci:

February: Purchasing of outdoor seeds from organic centre, making of info

boards, cleaning of beds in poly tunnel, planting of broad beans outside,

planting of early potatoes in poly tunnel, planting of native trees.

March: Sowing of seeds in trays in poly tunnel, planting of onions and garlic,

preparing of beds outside including digging of new beds, general

maintenance such as grass cutting.

April: Sowing of additional seeds, transfer of seeds in trays to beds in poly

tunnel, general maintenance.

May: Making support structures for climbing plants such as tomatoes,

mulching.

June: Harvesting of salads, scallions and broad beans. First all fresco lunch!

4.4. The Role of the Dunmanway Family Resource Centre as a Facilitator of the Garden

Overall it can be said that the Dunmanway Family Resource Centre played an integral part

in the coordination and utilisation of local sources and in the overall establishment of the

garden. This is mainly due to the various assets of the centre. Before the construction of a

patio area within the garden the DFRC served as meeting point for decision making and

during bad weather. It also provided other, non-gardening skills for the project such as

administrative and managerial capabilities. This is a factor in the implementation of

community development projects that must not be underestimated and its importance is

reflected in the experiences of Iyilikcy. Based on her experience individually run projects are

more likely to encounter difficulties than facilitated programmes, because projects, such as

neighbourhood initiatives, often lack resources like access to funding, administration and

contacts (Harris & Iyilikci, 2015). The importance of the DFRC is widely acknowledged by the

volunteers and was described by one individual as the “glue” of the garden, while another

one simply said that without the DFRC there would be no garden. At the same time, the

workers of the DFRC have experienced the garden as a huge positive impact on their lives as

it gets them out of the office more often and has led to a healthier lifestyle due to increased

26

exercise and improved eating habits (Harris & Holt, 2015). Further to that can the

importance of the DFRC best be established through its role as an overall facilitator of nearly

all events and courses taking part in the garden. DFRC manger Ita Harris experienced varying

success with different targeting approaches for events. She found that the more generic an

event was the more people attended. Examples included the Christmas wreath making

event in the winter of 2014 or the barbeque during the summer of 2014. Events that were

targeted at specific individuals did generally not experience great turnouts such as the

gardening work shop for people who experienced loss, were nobody came. It seems that

individuals with special needs can be more easily integrated into the garden, and by

extension the community, through a referral process established with local social workers

(Harris, 2015).

4.5. Dunmanway Community Garden Characteristics

The Dunmanway Community Garden project is situated on an approximately one acre site

within the West Cork village of Dunmanway and the development of the derelict site started

in the summer of 2013 after the local family resource centre signed a five year lease for the

site with Cork County Council (Quinlan, 2013) (Harris, 2015). The main characteristics of the

garden are those of a School and Educational Garden, Therapeutic and Healing Garden and

an Entrepreneurial Garden. This judgement is based on the main activities carried out in the

garden. The educational aspect is represented through a link to the local pre-schools which

carry out parts of their outdoor-curriculum in the garden while additional school visits and

after school projects are planned. Further to that, socio-cultural activities are carried out.

They include a “munch bunch” family cooking class for disadvantaged families, cookery

classes for men and classes for families who have to plan their cooking according to a

budget. During these cooking classes, which take place in the DFRC, produce from the

garden is utilised (Harris, 2015). The participants of these classes therefore not only gain

from educational aspects but also benefit from a reduction of their money allocated

towards buying food. Many of them state that their food budget has reduced while their

food security has improved (Horgan, Horgan & Fallon, 2015). The therapeutic and healing

characteristics of the garden are rooted in a weekly therapeutic gardening group calling

themselves the “sunshine growers”. Members of this group are challenged with

psychological and/or physical issues. Their work in the community garden is as much about

27

sustainable social interaction for the group members as it is about gardening work. There

are also monthly workshops targeted at people with psychological and/or physical

challenges with attendance varying depending on the individual theme of the event (Harris,

2015). However it is important to note that not only the gardeners who are deemed to have

special issues can gain therapeutic or healing benefits from the garden. This aspect applied

to all interviewed volunteers who all stated that their well-being has improved since they

joined the community garden (Fallon et al, 2015). Or as volunteer Charlie Horgan explained

it “it (the community garden) gets me out of the house and I get to meet other people and I

feel a lot healthier for it” (Horgan C, 2015). The entrepreneurial feature of the Dunmanway

garden is not based on economic gains as in financial profit making, but aims at the creation

of socio-economic benefits. This manifests itself in a policy of “skills for food” where

volunteers take home food from the garden as a payback for their investment of time and

effort. This also led to their food budget being reduced and it furthered their cooking skills

thereby also gaining educational rewards. It is also planned to use gardening produce in the

local meals on wheels facilities while it has already improved food security for elderly

people who are provided with meals in the family resource centre (Harris & Holt, 2015).

Further to that the garden provides socio-economic benefit to those families participating in

the Family Growing Initiative where selected families tend to specific beds in the garden in

order to combat food poverty and promote food choice (Harris, 2015).

4.6. The Community and how it benefitted from the Garden

The West Cork town of Dunmanway could certainly be described as culturally complex. The

population of the town is approximately 1500 with a significant hinterland, numerous

primary schools and a large secondary school. Like many places in rural Ireland Dunmanway

suffers from poor infrastructure and limited options for young people. There is a large

alternative lifestyle community represented in town with many of its members being 2 nd or

3rd generation members of this community and suffering from social and economic

disadvantages. This social composition of the greater Dunmanway community is very much

reflected in the social make-up of the community garden (Harris, 2015). Among the garden

volunteers are a high number of unemployed people and a significantly higher number of

28

non-Irish nationals than Irish nationals, the majority of which come from Great Britain,

Germany, Italy, Holland, France and Spain (Holt & Fallon, 2015). With the introduction of

workshops, for example Christmas-wreath making, the number of Irish nationals has begun

to rise. Most of the interviewed volunteers described it as a positive feature that the garden

brings so many different people and groups together, especially as their respective paths

might not cross normally (Fallon, Holt, Horgan, 2015).

Asked what the motivation was behind the creation of the project, project manager Ita

Harris said that one identified need of the community was the necessity for an accessible

and welcoming community project with specific initiatives (Harris, 2015). Based on the

volunteers’ feedback this requirement has most certainly been met. Other initiatives of the

project were less focused on the community as a whole but were more targeted at the

socially disadvantaged members of the community. The above mentioned “munch bunch”

family cooking programme was never designed to combat food poverty on a community

level but solely for low-income families; nevertheless this programme was open to everyone

who wanted to join. Other projects however could only be accessed through referral by the

local social welfare office such as the above mentioned Family Gardening Initiative (Harris,

2015). The motivations for participating in the garden and its projects seemed to be mainly

of a socio-economic nature with eight out of nine interviewees saying that social interaction

was the most important aspect for their participation. This was followed by educational

aspects with seven out of nine nominations. The growing of food was not a priority for the

volunteers with only one in nine participants describing it as an important aspect for his/her

involvement in the garden (Fallon et al, 2015). The overall numbers of volunteers was lower

than expected by the creators of the project. This however did not turn out to be a

disadvantage as the volunteers who got involved proved to be of a very high quality which

was actually beneficial as it helped those participants who were highly dependent on

support (Harris, 2015).

Based on the opinions and impressions provided by the participants of the projects it

becomes clear that they benefitted in ways that enhanced their economic, physical and

socio-economic well-being. All interviewed participants stated that they feel more

embedded in the community and that their overall well-being has increased since joining

the garden. However, even members of the greater Dunmanway community who choose

29

not to participate actively in the garden reaped certain benefits. Perhaps the most obvious

improvement for non-participants is that the garden has enhanced the area through the

transformation of a waste site into a garden. This means it provides a certain ecological

benefit to the community (Fallon, 2015). This transformation of the area has in return made

the garden a certain focal point where “people go even if they don’t participate” (Horgan M,

2015).

The successful implementation of community programmes not being held in the garden but

being related to it, such as the Parent and Toddler Baking Group or the Cooking with Mama

Maria Group, experienced great uptake. These initiatives were hosted by gardening

volunteers and produce from the garden was used in the groups. This increased the

understanding of the importance of good nutritional food among the participating

community members and created certain awareness among the initiators of the

programmes of their responsibility in relation to the provision of nutritional support and

healthy eating (Harris & Holt, 2015). Another very tangible benefit to members of the

Dunmanway community has been the employment of three persons on TÚS scheme

contracts during various stages of the project (Harris, 2015).

4.7. Difficulties and Problems during the Creation and Facilitation of the Project

While there were some conflicts among the project’s volunteers they were minor in nature

and mainly revolved around small operational issues such as tidiness and the use of tools. Of

greater significance were conflicts and difficulties with the neighbours who lived behind the

garden plot and did not participate in the project. One of their main concerns was the

impact the poly tunnel might have on the view from their houses. This led to a situation

where the proposed position of the poly tunnel had to be reconsidered because of these

resentments. Even though the changing of the tunnel’s position meant that it cannot obtain

the maximum amount of light it possibly could, the gardeners decided to move the tunnel’s

position out of the neighbours’ main line of sight. Another point of contention was a bench

that was used by the gardeners as a recreational place where they could sit down and relax

and catch a bit of sun. This bench was placed against a wall which separates the garden

from the back yard of one of the neighbours. The neighbour subsequently complained that

this bench would be an invitation for individuals to climb across the wall onto his property

30

and the bench was moved to a different position. The gardeners made attempts to engage

with the neighbours and invitations to visit the garden were issued on various occasions but

these invitations were not accepted. Despite the unwillingness of the neighbours to engage,

the gardeners plan to present the neighbours with surplus food after the next harvest in

order to promote inclusion or at least a more peaceful co-existence (Harris, 2015).

4.8. The Future of the Garden

The lease which the Dunmanway Family Resource Centre has signed with Cork County

Council runs for five years. At the time of writing it would be premature to speculate

whether it might be extended. Funding from Safe Food Ireland will end at the end of 2015

and costs associated with the garden will have to be met by other means. The introduction

of water charges will add to such costs and the construction of a water harvesting facility is

currently in the planning stages. Other costs will have to be met through donations and one

idea is to create a set up where surplus food from the garden is offered for a price to be

determined by the buyer on a “give as you can basis.” The steering group has also applied

for funding from the Grow It Yourself movement and the intention is to use it for an

extension of the school garden programme in order to spread the involvement among local

schools (Harris, 2015).

4.9. Analysis

In order to discuss the role community gardens can play in the creation of social capital and

community development it is arguably of importance to establish if these were the goals the

initiators of the project had in mind in the first place. The Dunmanway project was initiated

by the DFRC and as mentioned in chapter 4.2. among the core goals of the garden were the

promotion of “…positive family and community relationships…wellbeing and reflect cultural

diversity.” (DFRC, 2013) Based on these aims, and also based on the mission statement of

the DFRC which is “to build links between families and individuals and to reach out and

provide a range of services to encourage a community where everybody is valued and

supported”, it can surely be argued that the promotion of social capital and community

development was indeed a key aspect that led to the establishment of the Dunmanway

project.

31

The question that presents itself next is whether social capital has really been created

through the establishment of the project. This question can be answered by comparing the

Dunmanway project to the theory of Glover who conducted a case study on a community

garden in Canada. He described that the examined project capitalised on and also added to

the accumulation of social capital in its neighbourhood (Glover, 2004).

The theories of Glover and Bütikofer as described in chapter 2.6. are certainly reflected in

the Dunmanway project. The DFRC as the facilitators of the garden project was able to use

its contacts to a nearby centre for sustainability to recruit local volunteers involved in a

gardening course taking place there. During the implementation phase of the Dunmanway

project the volunteers used their own contacts to further their case, for example in the

acquisition of gravel and fertilizer. Later when the project was already established

individuals with special needs were integrated into the garden through established referral

processes. Even though these referral processes involved professional social workers from

the DFRC and the local social welfare office, they are still based on ties that were arguably

created to encourage mutually advantageous cooperation. They should therefore be viewed

as existing social capital ties.

Once established the garden proved to be an important tool in the creation of further social

capital. As mentioned in chapter 4.6. all interviewed participants stated that they felt more

embedded in the community after they had joined the garden project and four out of five

participants said that the social interaction with other volunteers was the main reason for

their participation. The gardening volunteers then went on to create more social capital and

to establish social ties among community members which had so far not been involved in

activities related to the garden. They did so by hosting events such as the Cooking With

Mama Maria classes and the Parent And Toddler Baking Group. During those events

produce from the garden was used. While those events were beneficial to the targeted

individuals they were certainly also important and meaningful to those who initiated them,

which is an important point in the creation of social capital. It is also important in successful

community development as pointed out in chapter 2.2. by Hoffman and Doody. Even

though it was not mentioned by any of the interviewees, the likely reasons why the

facilitation of such events are meaningful to its initiators are that because of their

voluntarism, the initiators and facilitators can gain respect, friendship and recognition in

32

their community. (Bütikofer, 2012). This seems an important point especially considering

the social and economic composition of the greater Dunmanway area in general and the

social make-up of the garden volunteers in particular.

The concepts of reciprocity and trust as cornerstones of social capital also seem to be

reflected in the Dunmanway project. This applies to the participants of the community

garden as well as to other community members who choose not to participate. Among the

participants’ reciprocity and trust manifest themselves in simple everyday tasks. A trip to

purchase a bulky item, be garden related or not, is now easier because one of the

volunteers owns a van. And in general the gardening volunteers feel that they know more

people now of whom they could ask a favour if needs be (Horgan M, 2015).

For non-participants the garden has proved beneficial as it has enhanced the area and has

become a destination point for walking trips (Horgan C, 2015). At the same time it seems

that the “open gate policy” as mentioned in chapter 4.1. has been reciprocated positively as

no theft or vandalism has occurred. It can therefore be said that the Dunmanway project

has successfully created social capital among a wide section of the local community.

The next question to be answered is whether the Dunmanway community garden has

contributed to community development efforts in Dunmanway. Given that the garden

project has transformed a brown–field waste site with a dubious reputation into a

destination point for walkers, it is obvious that a physical improvement has taken place. This

has been achieved through the active and voluntary participation by community members.

This participation has in return led to an improvement in the economic, physical and socio-

economic well-being of the gardening volunteers as outlined in chapter 4.6. Further to that,

the gardening project has led to an improvement in the lifestyle of the participants through

increased exercise and a better diet. At the same time, the use of garden produce has

improved diets and food security for elderly people who turn to the DFRC for the provision

of daily meals. The role of the garden as an educational tool for the local pre-schools must

not be underestimated as the socio-ecological effects of such school gardens can be

extremely beneficial to communities in the short and long-term as outlined in chapter 2.2.

Lastly the community garden has created three jobs in the shape of TÚS scheme contracts

since the establishment of the project in 2013.The community garden in Dunmanway has

33

therefore empowered the participating members of the community to actively participate in

the improvement and development of the Dunmanway community, while at the same time

improving physical and mental well-being. The question as to whether the Dunmanway

project has contributed to community development must therefore be answered with a

clear yes.

This development in Dunmanway has taken place in a truly inclusive manner. The projects

initiated by the garden management and the garden volunteers were generally generic in

their nature and looked towards the outside. The garden provided a place to bridge cultural

differences by bringing together people from many nationalities and different backgrounds

thereby creating a heterogeneous group which reflected the social make-up of the greater

Dunmanway area.

Based on the findings and analysis compiled above it is evident that the community garden

in Dunmanway has created and promoted social capital and community development in the

greater Dunmanway area.

It must now be examined whether the findings I made in Dunmanway are unique to this

project or if other community garden projects operate in similar circumstances and

developed similar results. Keeping in mind that community gardens vary in their

characteristics depending on the local needs (Ferries et al, 2001) it is arguably not easy to

compare different community gardens like for like. There are however a number of

underlying themes which are, according to Ferries, forming the social dimensions of

community gardens. Those are: food security and poverty, health, children and community.

These dimensions are all of importance in the garden in Dunmanway as I have illustrated in

chapter 4. Based on Madlener’s observations as illustrated in chapter 2.2. ownership, socio

cultural and ecological diversity are also of importance in community gardens. These

characteristics were also highlighted by Ferries et al (2009) and Turner (2011). Given the fact

that Ferries based his observations on studies conducted in California and Turners

observations stem from Australia while those of Madlener were made in Austria, it can

easily be argued that the circumstances in which the community garden in Dunmanway was

created and operates are quite typical for community garden projects. The same could be

said for the motivations of the volunteers with most of the Dunmanway volunteers saying

34

that the interaction with other volunteers was the most important aspect of their

participation. The same observation was made by Alaimo in her study of community

gardens in New York as pointed out in chapter 2.5.

The political aspect of community gardens as referred to by Madlener and Bütikofer in

chapter 2.2, was less pronounced in Dunmanway. While the garden is of an inclusive and

multi-cultural nature I did not experience the participants as being politically active or

viewing their project as a political statement.

A scientific profiling of the gardeners as carried out by Blaine, Parwinder, Ashley and Snider

in Cleveland was not possible in the case of the Dunmanway project. This is due to the small

sample but also due to the research method. The typical characteristics of field research

(participation, observation and communication) led to a situation where I would have been

uncomfortable to ask the participants about their income. Based on the general information

provided by the DFRC it can however be said that the number of unemployed people were

significantly represented in the project. Based on the aims of the projects facilitator, its

mission statement and the general make-up of the greater Dunmanway area this should not

come as a surprise. The tendency towards targeting the unemployed also seems to be

reflected in the times of which most events in the garden take place. Even though the

garden is always open it is arguably events such as Beginners Gardening and Sunshine

Gardening which aim to attract community members. However the vast majority of these

events take place during the morning.

Contrary to findings of Blaine, Parwinder, Ashley and Snider the gender balance in

Dunmanway was heavily skewed in favour of female participation with eight out of nine

interviewees being female. This ratio was also reflected among the other volunteers whom I

did not interview. I am however not suggesting that this is in any way intentional.

In relation to the participants physical proximity to the garden the findings in Dunmanway

reflected those of the study in Cleveland as all interviewed volunteers lived within 15

minutes of the garden site.

35

To promote the creation of similar projects and the long-term continuation of already

existing projects it is important to establish what makes community gardens such an ideal

vehicle for the promotion and development of the community and social capital. Francis’

argument cited in chapter 1.2., that the creation of social capital is usually the by-product of

activities made in order to reach other goals is certainly correct. Community gardens

provide a wide range of such activities. They promote physical activity through the

production of healthy foods. They create social ties that stretch across age and cultural

differences. They reduce food poverty and promote food choice. They improve mental well-

being and the physical characteristics of the area they are located in, and with the possible

exception of the physical activity all those activities create benefits for participants as well

as non-participants. These overarching benefits that can promote community development

in multiple ways make community gardens such an ideal tool to create inclusive,

reciprocated and socially productive societies.

36

Chapter 5

Conclusion

Community gardens have many characteristics. They function as places for recreational and

educational purposes. They provide room for entrepreneurial activities and ecological

actions and they can act as safe havens for people who seek support and social inclusion.

These characteristics are a reflection of societies’ needs for improvement. Community

gardens can address food poverty and provide healthy alternative food produce to some of

the most vulnerable people in society. They also provide physical improvements to the

areas they are established in and to the people living in these areas. These characteristics

make community gardens a focal point for many areas and a place where social networks

can be established and developed.

There are many opportunities where an individual can make social contacts but there are

certain places that are better suited to promote such creation of social capital than others.

Community gardens must be considered as an ideal place for such activities. A community

garden is an open place ideally suited to meet people. So is a pub, but unlike a pub a

community garden does not require money in order to benefit from it. A community garden

provides an overarching interest to those who participate. So does a sports club, but

participation in amateur sports can likewise be expensive and is generally limited to a

certain age range and fitness level. The absence of financial obstacles and the possibility to

grow healthy, nutritious food make community gardens an ideal place for a heterogeneous

mix of people who might otherwise not be able to benefit from such produce. Community

gardens do not only provide nutritious food, they also provide other health benefits such as

the opportunity to engage in physical activities through the gardening work and the

therapeutic effects gardening can provide. These jointly made experiences can create a

certain bond among the gardeners especially when their efforts are rewarded with quality

produce. In the case of the Dunmanway garden this became evident when an Italian

volunteer was able to harvest Italian herbs of a quality far outstripping those in local

supermarkets. At the same time a community garden provides economic benefits to those

involved through the possible reduction of their food budgets. Community gardens

therefore enable all people regardless of age, social background, physical and psychological

37

health to get involved in a wide range of activities, thereby gaining benefits such as

improved health, extended social networks, friendship, respect and recognition. At the

same time, community gardens can provide spill over benefits to other, non-participating

members of the community. Such benefits include improved diets, food choice and food

security through the provision of garden produce or meals made with such produce. Other

benefits which extend to non participants are the possible increase in the value of property

close to the garden especially when the garden has more of a park character.

It seems interesting that the production of food is not the most important aspect for the

majority of volunteers in community garden projects. Socio-economic aspects, such as

personal interaction and education were of higher importance in Dunmanway, but also in

other examined projects. However, the production of healthy, nutritious food is one of the

most tangible benefits to those community members who cannot actively participate in the

garden as such produce is more often than not distributed through community initiatives

like Meals On Wheels and similar programmes. For some elderly people, this might indeed

be the only tangible benefit the garden delivers. At the same time, such initiatives do

provide a basis for the socio-economic benefits experienced by the volunteers. The garden’s

produce is the medium that (re)connects community members and on the back of it the

garden fosters trust, tolerance and social integration. The community garden’s role as a

place of production must therefore not be underestimated as the produce can be invested

in other community activities and ultimately validates the act of volunteering. Not only do

the garden’s products validate volunteerism they also create new opportunities for further

activities.

The community garden in Dunmanway constitutes an ideal example of the multiple options

such a project offers in the creation of social capital and community development and how

these options can be utilised. The current volunteers have experienced a significant

improvement in their quality of life. Through the provision of educational activities and

employment opportunities these improvements have the potential to be of a long term

nature. The increased focus on the role as a school garden should likewise bring long term

benefits to the community. The activities carried out in the Dunmanway project reflect the

needs of the community in an ideal manner and this is made possible because the facilitator

of the project, the DFRC, has the best possible insights into these needs. It can therefore

38

create “tailor made” events for potential recipients and establish same through the use of

their managerial and administrative expertise. Additionally that the location of the garden

site is between the two local DFRC centres an important benefit as the project is in walking

distance of the facilitators and allows them to stay on top of things. While part of the

success of the Dunmanway project is certainly due to the local characteristics, it cannot

solely be explained by them. The increasing popularity of community gardens across the

world and in many different circumstances supports this argument. Once the physical

demands for a garden site are met the potential improvements a community garden can

deliver are immense. Whether the project is facilitated or run through a neighbourhood

initiative may not be insignificant for its success, but it is not the deciding factor. The key to

the success of community garden projects is that these projects take on a multi-dimensional

and almost self-perpetuating role. This multi-dimensional role in return develops a multi-

dimensional community whose members might have different motivations for joining the

garden, but have an overarching common goal: the improvement of the quality of life for

themselves and, through their involvement in a public project, the improvement of public

life in their locality.

39

Bibliography

Alaimo K. Reischl T.M. Ober-Allen J. (2010) Community Gardeneing, Neighborhood Meetings and Social Capital. Journal of community Psychology, Vol. 38, No. 4, 497-514 (2010) Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcop.20378/pdf

American Trails (2010) Physical activity facilities have economic as well as health benefits. March 2010. Available: http://www.americantrails.org/resources/economics/Economic-Benefits-Trails-Open-Space-Walkable-Community.html Accessed: 25/02/2015

Blaine T.W. Parwinder S.G. Ashley D. Snider D. (2010) Profiling Community Gardeners. Journal of Extension. Vol. 48 No. 6. Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/2010december/a6.php Accessed: 13/03/2015

Bütikofer B. (2012) Urban Community Gardens as a Hotbed of Social Networks. Masters Thesis Humboldt University Berlin. Available: http://anstiftung.de/jdownloads/Forschungsarbeiten%20Urbane%20Grten/urb_gemeinsch_g.pdf Accessed: 27/02/2015

CSO (2011) Area profile for Town. Dunmanway Co.Cork. Available: http://census.cso.ie/areaprofiles/areaprofile.aspx?Geog_Type=ST&Geog_Code=18024 Accessed: 25/02/2015

Der Spiegel (2006) Rent a Plot: Germany’s Garden Ghettos. Spiegel Online International 11/04/2006 Available: http://www.spiegel.de/international/rent-a-plot-germany-s-garden-ghettos-a-410799.html Accessed: 28/01/2015

DFRC (2013) Dunmanway Family Resource Centre. Three year strategic plan and annual action plan. Available: http://dunmanwayfrc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Work-Plan-2014-2017.pdf Accessed: 25/02/2015

Dictionary.com (2014). Dictionary.com Community Garden. Available: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/community+garden accessed: 05/11/2014

Dunmanway.ie (n.d.) Welcome to Dunmanway. Available: http://www.dunmanway.ie/ Accessed 25/02/2015

du Plessis, G, & Lekganyane, E (2010), 'The role of food gardens in empowering women: A study of Makotse Women's Club in Limpopo', Journal Of Social Development In Africa, 25, 2, pp. 97-120, SocINDEX with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 February 2015.

Ecolife (2011). Ecolife.Dictionary: What is a Community Garden? Available: http://www.ecolife.com/define/community-garden.html Accessed: 15/11/2014

Fallon A, Holt T, Horgan C, Horgan M, Kelly N. (2015) (Volunteers) Personal interviews with Dirk Fleischheuer 15/01/2015, 22/01/2015

Ferris J. Norman C. Sempik J.et al (2001). People, Land and Sustainability: Community Gardens and the Social Dimension of Sustainable Development. Social Policy & Administration. Vol. 35, No. 5 December 2001 pp. 559 Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9515.t01-1-00253/abstract Accessed: 16/11/2014

Fleck D. (2013) Das Potenzial Interkultureller Gärten als Lern- und Begegnungsorte für Globales Lernen – eine kritische Potenzial-Analyse anhand eines Beispielgartens in Wien. Available:

40

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gemeinschaftsgaerten&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 Accessed: 01/02/2015

Francis P. (2002) Social Capital, Civil Society and Social Exclusion. In Kothari U and Minogue M (eds). Development Theory and Practice. Basingstoke. Palgrave. Pp 77; 78.

Gebhard U.G. (2013) Kind und Natur. Die Bedeutung der Natur für die psychische Entwicklung. Springer Verlag Hamburg. 4th edition Pp 111. Available: https://books.google.ie/books?id=E-4oBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=positive+effekte+von+schrebergarten&source=bl&ots=J28tisFBtn&sig=irMpITpZoxIPAw9i2kGpkh0Nn80&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Qd_IVPHGJMSQ7AaI4YGgBQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=positive%20effekte%20von%20schrebergarten&f=false Accessed: 28/01/2015

Green Heart Education (2007) The value of school gardens. Available: http://www.greenhearted.org/school-gardens.html Accessed: 28/01/2015

Glover T.D. (2004) Social Capital in the Lived Experiences of Community Gardeners. Leisure Sciences, 26; 143-162, 2004. Available: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01490400490432064#.VM4mEHlyaM8 Accessed: 01/02/2015

Hancock T. (1999) People, partnership and human progress: Building community capital. Health Promotion International. Vol.16. No.3. Available: http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/3/275.full.pdf+html Accessed: 10/03/2015

Harris Ita, 2015. (Dunmanway Family Resource Centre project manager) Personal interview with Dirk Fleischheuer 15/01/2015

Hirsch J. (2013). Thievery, Fraud, Fistfights and Weed: The other side of Community Gardens. ModernFarmer.com. 06/12/2013 Available: http://modernfarmer.com/2013/12/robbery-drugs-fistfights-dark-side-community-gardening/ Accessed: 05/02/2015

Hoffman A.J. Doody S. (2014) Build a fruit tree orchard and they will come: creating an eco-identity via community gardening activities. Community Development. March 24, 2014. Available: http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/1/104.full Accessed: 16/11/2015

Holt T. (2015) (Dunmanway Family Resource Centre Manager) Personal interview with Dirk Fleischheuer 22/01/2015

Horgan C. (2015) (Volunteer and neighbour) Personal interview with Dirk Fleischheuer 15/01/2015

Horgan M. (2015) (Volunteer and neighbour) Personal interview with Dirk Fleischheuer 15/01/2015

ISS (2004) Indices of Social Development. Defining Social Development. Available: http://www.indsocdev.org/defining-social-development.html Accessed: 01/02/2015

Iyilikci S. (2015) (Resident gardener Dunmanway Community Garden) Personal interview with Dirk Fleischheuer 03/02/2015

Kim BF, Poulsen MN, Margulies JD, Dix KL, Palmer AM (2014) Urban Community Gardeners’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Soil Contaminant Risks.

41

PLoS ONE 9(2): e87913. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087913 Available: http://0-web.a.ebscohost.com.library.ucc.ie/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a60d5913-382c-42e0-ba60-a17ba2b09938%40sessionmgr4004&vid=20&hid=4106 Accessed 16/11/2014

Siegsdotter U.& Grahn P. (n.d.) What makes a Garden a Healing Garden? Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture. Available: http://www.protac.dk/Files/Filer/What_makes_a_garden_a_healing_garden_Stigsdotter_U__Grahn_P.pdf Accessed 28/01/2015

Madlener N. (2009) Was sind Gemeinschaftsärten? Sustainable Austria, No.46 March2009. Available: http://www.nachhaltig.at/SusA46.pdf Accessed 03/03/2015

McIlvaine-Newsad H. & Porter R. (2013). How does your Garden grow? Environmental Justice Aspects of Community Gardens. Journal of Ecological Anthropology. Vol. 16 No. 1. Pp 69-73 Available: http://0-web.b.ebscohost.com.library.ucc.ie/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=9437b1ae-cb73-4b82-b56f-8ea6f7e74d73%40sessionmgr114&hid=110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=94308272 Accessed 17/11/2014

Midgley J. (2013). Social Development and Social Protection: New Opportunities and Challenges. Development Southern Africa. Vol. 30 No. 1. Pp 6. Available: http://0-web.a.ebscohost.com.library.ucc.ie/ehost/detail/detail?vid=12&sid=a60d5913-382c-42e0-ba60-a17ba2b09938%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4106&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=85221962 Accessed: 16/11/2014

Ohmer M.L. Meadowcroft P. Freed K. Lewis E. (2009) Community Gardening and Community Development: Individual, Social and Community Benefits of a Community Conservation Programm. Journal of Community Practise 17:377-399, 2009 Available: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10705420903299961#.VMjK8sJyb4g Accessed: 16/11/2015

Ozzer E.J. (2007) The Effects of School Gardens on Students and Schools: Conceptualization and Considerations for Maximizing Healthy Development. Health, Education & Behaviour, Vol.34 (6) Pp 846-863. December 2007. Available: http://www.kohalacenter.org/HISGN/pdf/Ozer_gardens-3.pdf Accessed: 28/01/2015

Pavlov M.Y. (2014). Development Social. Value Inquiry Book Series. Vol. 276, p128-129 Available: http://0-web.a.ebscohost.com.library.ucc.ie/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a60d5913-382c-42e0-ba60-a17ba2b09938%40sessionmgr4004&vid=15&hid=4106 Accessed: 16/11/2014)

PeerNetBC (n.d) PeerNet. What is community development? Available: http://www.peernetbc.com/what-is-community-development Accessed: 03/03/2015

Putnam R.D. (2000) Bowling alone. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks. New York. Pp 19; 134-135

Quinlan A. (2013) Community Garden for Dunmanway. The Southern Star 29/07/2013. Available: http://dunmanwayfrc.com/news_articles/community-garden-for-dunmanway/ Accessed 20/01/2015

Smith T. & Parpia R. (2014). Community Gardens yield Community Benefits. Parks & Recreation. October 2014 pp80. Available: http://0-web.b.ebscohost.com.library.ucc.ie/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=df151554-7393-4b97-ba6c-7b51e2b8b09b

42

%40sessionmgr198&hid=107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=99047451 Accessed: 05/11/2014

Syme L.S. Rittermann M.L. The Importance of Community Development For Health and Well-Being. Community Development Investment Review. Available: http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6223939.pdf Accessed 05/11/2014

Turner B. (2011). Embodied Connections: Sustainability, Food Systems and Community Gardens. Local Environment. Vol. 16, No. 6. July 2011, pp509-522. Available: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13549839.2011.569537#.VGn4xcJyZMs Accessed: 17/11/2014

TheFreeDictionary (2014). TheFreeDictionary by Farflex. Social Capital. Available: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/social+capital Accessed: 15/11/2014

Wang H. Qui F. Swallow B. (2014) Can community gardens and farmers' markets relieve food desert problems? A study of Edmonton, Canada. Applied Geography.Vol. 55. December 2014. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143622814002112 Accessed 05/02/2015

World Bank (2014) World Bank. Social Development Overview. Available: http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/socialdevelopment/overview Accessed: 01/02/2015

Zhu X. Woo S.E. Porter C. Brzezinski M. (2013). Pathways to Happiness: From Personality to social Networks and perceived Support. Social Networks. 35. 2013 pp 382-393. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378873313000415 Accessed: 17/11/2014

Appendix

43

List of questions in questionnaire:

Which is the most important aspect for you when participating in the garden?

Did you make positive experiences through the participation in projects connected to the

garden?

Were those projects initiated through the steering/management group or by volunteers

themselves?

Do you feel that you are more embedded in the community since you have joined the

garden?

Do you think that the community of Dunmanway has benefitted from the garden?

If yes to the above, how?

Did your food budget reduce?

Did your food security improve?

In your own words, which is the main reason for participating in the garden?

Which activities are being carried out in the garden?

What is the social composition of the community?

Is this social composition reflected in the garden?

How important is the DFRC for the garden?

Have there been any difficulties or differences of opinion in matters concerning the garden?

How are decisions regarding the garden reached in General? Votes? Discussions?

How was the garden planned? Was there a theme? Who decided what to plant?

What was the first, second… step when creating the garden?

Did the garden improve your attitude towards your neighbourhood/the area you live in?

44

Did you transfer the social network connections you made in the garden to other activities

outside the garden?

Has your investment in the garden earned you a “return” in terms of social networks? i.e do

you know more people who you could ask for a favour if need be…

Did you feel isolated within the community before you joined the community garden?

What was on the site before the garden was established and how did you experience it?

When developing programs did you design did you design them primarily to improve the

social capital of the individual by attracting large numbers or did you aim the programs at

small target groups in the hope that, even though they might not attract large numbers,

they might create a spill over effect, those eventually drawing in more participants?

45