|
The proliferation of such edge spaces and widening of such channels can be seen as leading ultimately to a process of normalisation, which can be seen in many of the efforts made by different bodies during the study. This may also offer ways to move beyond simplistic group portrayals. For instance, ACFCGN set up an information stall at a recent public meeting concerning genetically modified organisms. Emphasis was placed on providing photos of the gardens, as well as brochures and fliers. This was seen as a way to make the spaces of community gardens ‘real’; individuals inquiring about gardens and unsure as to their manifestations, could then engage with the gardens through the photographs, placing them in relation to known landmarks and constructing methods of transport and access to the gardens. Explanations of the organisational structures of the gardens and their interactions with surrounding bodies reassured and familiarised newcomers and provided an understanding of the gardens as diverse, human-scale, non-threatening spaces. It was also seen that the nomenclature of the gardens is problematic and opaque; most inquirers did not know what a ‘community garden’ was, but thought the allocation of land for people to grow organic food was a great idea.
This highlighted several issues regarding accessibility. The greatest contribution the interactions made was the ability for people to engage with the concept of community gardens or urban food production. Face to face interaction was important in this, as it allowed for direct engagement with an individual and their issues concerning community gardening. The ACFCGN coordinators also reported a reliance on such interaction for any definitive conversations or interactions, claiming that fliers, telephone calls and email simply cannot replace this. The desire for face to face interaction stands in contrast to the advent of the group as discussed by Saul, which requires that individuals converge into structures that become largely impersonal and anonymous 15. Face to face interaction provides space for the generation of trust, contextualisation and understanding; the domination by corporatism makes this both increasingly desirable and difficult. In light of Saul’s concerns regarding groups as discussed in Chapter 2, problems surrounding group representation can be seen in the efforts undertaken. While SSC’s drive to have urban community gardens incorporated into their Generic Open Space Plan of Management represents great potential for gardens to secure access to land, it can also be seen as a reinforcement of the community as an interest group which has to find ways to justify or validate access to basic requirements for existence. Further, while a gardening body may use a platform such as health or waste reduction initiatives to generate leverage for such access, the platform can itself become restrictive and simplistic, inferring homogeneity as to reasons for joining the garden and activities perceived as appropriate for that space. Such representations may alienate or mislead potential newcomers and imply the garden is an insular body, thereby potentially affecting the accessibility of these spaces. The recognition by SSC of community gardens as a potential site for the provision of food security and alleviation of food related poverty is an interesting issue 16. The ACFCGN coordinators perceived that gardens within Sydney were not generally seen in this regard, as food security is not as great an issue as in areas such as the Solomon Islands, where the coordinators have also been active. Further, it was claimed that many community garden initiatives in Europe have been fuelled by critical levels of pollution, acid rain, BSE and so on, which have not been as immediately threatening in Australia. Hence, the perceived role of community gardens in Sydney tends to focus more on community development. While this may allow these spaces to be sites for developing structures and processes appropriate for ‘sustainable democracy’, it may also reduce any perception of such work as urgent or important. In this light, SSC’s recognition represents possible stimulus for greater support for community gardens; however, it may be that this support is channelled only into areas perceived to be ‘at risk’ according to indicators of issues such as health or income. This issue was highlighted in two recent high-profile articles in the Sydney Morning Herald, one of which focussed on Cook Community Garden in Waterloo as a space for the development of disadvantaged communities, failing to document the presence of gardens in other areas or to look at broader advantages or roles of these spaces 17. Also absent from this portrayal was SSC’s Local Food Policy 18; this issue’s lack of attention is also encountered in the current manifestation of SSC support as reliant upon the gardens’ role in waste reduction 19. This highlights further issues concerning the use of the media by gardeners. Much usage is made of media concerning permaculture and organic gardening, or community newsletters 20. However, it was noted that this only reaches people who are already interested in or aware of the issues 21. To normalise community gardening by broadening their exposure and creating further understanding among the wider population, most groups rely on wider media representation. This includes local newspapers, community or public television and radio. The Sydney Morning Herald has contained articles of which gardeners had been unaware, but which have led to significant numbers of inquiries and visitors. This highlights the informality of information flows, as the paper had known of the open day incentive without gardeners having targeted this paper. However, as seen above and also documented in Chapter 1, such media may not always represent the gardens accurately or in their full context. As such, individuals involved in the open day collaboration planned for early 2000 aim to contact the journalist responsible for the article and engage with that person regarding appropriate promotion or coverage of the event. While attempts made by the gardeners themselves would ideally be more appropriate and relevant, promotion of an open day incentive in collaboration with another community network raised several issues. Firstly, that network’s contact details ceased to operate after advertisements had been sent to various local newspapers. Secondly, a series of issues overlapped to omit one garden from the promotion. This included ACFCGN’s reliance on email and the inability of one member of ACFCGN involved in promotion to participate at that time due to other commitments. This left much of the promotion up to one individual, whose daily experience largely focussed on a particular group of gardens. Subsequently, these gardens were included, omitting one lying outside this individual’s daily or local association with community gardens. This highlights the previously discussed need for replication, as the involvement of more individuals would provide wider total areas of overlapping experience and a number of opportunities for information to be checked before being sent to the media. This discussion also highlights the need for collaboration between various bodies to establish appropriate processes and structures concerning community gardens. This is consistent with theories of replication as discussed in Chapter 2 and the recognition by various authors of the need for collaboration between private and public bodies in action concerning community development or sustainability 22. Such literature reflects many of the issues encountered in the study and reported by individuals involved. These focussed on the role of support bodies such as SSC or ACFCGN as avenues for access, whereby simple things such as the existence of individuals paid to answer telephone inquiries or be identifiable as associated with gardens, enables a point of stability and contact. This has the potential to remedy situations such as local councils being unaware of the gardens under their jurisdiction. Despite such provision, however, SSC had encountered problems with reception staff being unaware of the existence of the community gardens officer. This appears to have settled down as staff become aware of this newly appointed position. |
||||||||||
<< 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 >> |
|||||||||||