|
This can be seen as an example of negotiation of the spaces between various bodies, the engagement with ‘edges’ as discussed in Chapter 2. Many such negotiations were encountered in the study, and can be interpreted in light of what the negotiation of such spaces may mean for access. A physical encounter with the accessibility of a garden can be seen at the garden’s gate, an edge space situated firmly at the interface of the garden and other public realms. These gate spaces varied widely throughout the gardens as seen in the plates in Chapter 3, and reflected various dynamics. As an example, the UNSW Permaculture Community Garden keeps its gate open 24 hours a day, with the sign being placed at the driveway when gardeners are present. In contrast, most other groups keep the gate locked except when gardeners are present, except for Glovers, which is locked even when gardeners are in the garden. The reasons for this variation are largely the result of past or possible acts of vandalism or violence, which appear to be a function of location. That is, the UNSW garden, situated back from the road and accessed by walking down a driveway between two houses, is relatively secluded, which may protect it from vandalism. Most other gardens are not as close to residential property, so do not have the deterring effect of possible witnesses 14. Glovers Community Garden represents a unique situation, in that the reason for such vigilance may be the result of the garden’s proximity to the Intensive Psychiatric Care Unit of the hospital. This variation in the gardens’ public face is a reflection of the gardens’ immediate, local embeddedness, in a directly spatial sense, with direct repercussions for access, as the perceived welcome or otherwise felt at the garden entrance is a significant factor in an individual’s engagement with the garden.
Encouraging the engagement of interested potential gardeners was an issue raised by several interviewees. Perhaps the most constructive attempts were seen in the efforts of UNSW gardeners, who were attempting to welcome newcomers into participation with a space which appears to be well established by a group who know each other quite well. Such endeavours are based on an understanding that people want to feel a space is theirs and that there is work that they can do; hence, the gardeners are looking at ways to designate learning areas within the garden. Proposals include developing an area dedicated to workshops for building structures such as garden beds which can then be dismantled and the space used again in this way, and a plan to allow newcomers to "adopt a bed". This effectively hands a particular bed within the garden over to an individual, who maintains it according to permaculture principles and the garden plan. If that member is unable to attend for any extended period of time however, other members will maintain the bed in similar fashion until their return. If the "owner" does not return, the bed has not fallen into disrepair and overall garden function has not been compromised. This is similar to the Angel Street model of starting newcomers off with their own seedlings in the greenhouse. The UNSW efforts were described by the gardeners as allowing people to engage with their own space, make mistakes and learn, without threatening the garden’s structure. Another manifestation of various bodies’ engagement with the spaces between them was seen in the different models of conflict resolution. In addition to the interactions between Angel Street and Randwick Community Organic Garden and their neighbouring schools as discussed in Chapter 3, both UNSW and Glovers revealed relevant methods of negotiating particularly or potentially hostile spaces. An issue of conflict in the UNSW garden had been quite longstanding when a technique known as ORID was introduced at an ACFCGN meeting which some of the gardeners involved attended. This technique proposes a four-stage process for discussion facilitation or conflict resolution; the stages are Objective, Reflective, Interpretative and Decisional – aspects of these are shown in figures 4.2 and 4.3. The gardeners adopted the technique, which represents a direct engagement with a space which until that time had been charged with fairly intense emotions. While the gardeners did not progress through the entirety of the process, they found it created a safe place where the opinions and expectations of all parties were respected. This diffused much of the prior intensity, such that the gardeners found they were able to talk and laugh about the situation. Most resolution of the issue then proceeded through informal discussion and interaction while individuals were working together in the garden. Humour was seen to be of great importance to this relaxation of the space between the gardeners, as was the ability of a third party to devolve any unyielding head-to-head dynamics. A similar tripartite dynamic was seen between Glovers Community Garden and the Rozelle Hospital administration, in that the presence of a hospital staff member as a garden member may represent a mediatory link between these two bodies. This may represent a channel for reparation of the seeming impasse documented above, in which the new garden coordinator encountered the objection of the administration to the garden’s promotion at a time when such promotion was most needed. Such mediation, as with that performed by ACFCGN and the SSC community gardens officer, generates more spaces for engagement and more channels of access and interaction. |
||||||||||
<< email:lcrabtre@*SPAMBINGLER*els.mq.edu.au >> NOTE: Remember to delete the expression *SPAMBINGLER* from the address before sending the email. << honours index >> << phd index >> << home >> << to top of page >> |
|||||||||||