|
|
This thesis represents the results of field research into community gardens in inner Sydney. These gardens are spaces available to the community for growing a variety of plants and animals, either communally or on an allotment basis. This study focuses on spaces formally identifying themselves as community gardens, usually through signage and an agreement with the landholder as to the continued presence and function of the garden. In response to a thesis by Darren Phillips, a community gardens network has been established which "... advises and assists new and existing community gardens" and "... can advise local government and other landholders on the setting up of community gardens, environmental and sustainable living centres." 34 This network was therefore included in the study due to its potential as a conduit for information flows between gardens and with the wider community; this reflects the theoretical focus on ‘sustainability’ in terms of accessibility. Several gardens displayed strong support from local council; where this was so, relevant council staff were also included in the field work.
In many instances, the individuals interviewed were found to play several overlapping roles; hence, community gardeners could also be council staff, network members or professional permaculturalists. In all instances, attempts were made to document as many of these roles as possible and examine the interconnection between the differing networks these people engaged in, in the fulfilment of these roles. It is hoped that examination of such ties will help illuminate the paths of information flows and further, hint at ways at which this may be enhanced and greater community awareness regarding urban community gardens raised.
I can see my house!
The gardens under investigation are Randwick Community Organic Garden, the University of New South Wales Permaculture Community Garden (also in Randwick), Waterloo Community Garden, three Department of Housing community gardens (Marton, Solander and Cook Community Gardens – also in Waterloo), Angel Street Permaculture Garden (Newtown), Glovers Community Garden (Rozelle), the Women’s Community Garden (Marrickville) and an as yet nameless garden proposal in Macdonaldtown. Figure 2.5 illustrates the location of these gardens within Sydney.
Figure 2.5. Location of community gardens under study.
These gardens were visited and included for a number of reasons. Firstly, residence in the inner city means these gardens are the most relevant and proximate, representing appropriate sites for action for sustainability. Second, a study of those gardens within the inner city represent a relevant framework for interrogation of the issues concerning ‘sustainability’, ‘action’ and perceptions of the ‘urban’ discussed in Chapter 1. That is, urban community gardens provide a pertinent means for considering issues such as: how information flows and the networks mediating these flows; how to enhance these flows; what the urban realm could be; how the local production of some of the means of
existence may manifest; what ‘community’ may mean; the problems surrounding such a term; what ‘sustainability’ may mean and to whom. Thirdly, newly establishing gardens were included as these represent recent efforts to access the information, spaces and individuals involved in urban community gardens.
Fourthly, two gardens were included which are not located within the inner city: Randwick Community Organic Garden and the University of New South Wales Permaculture Community Garden. These were included due to their roles as examples of the variety of garden structures possible, and their responsiveness to initial inquiries. Lastly, therefore, the relative ease of contacting gardens played no small part in their inclusion, given the time and scope limitations of this study. Where any such issues of access did arise, possible factors that may have been involved in the denial or granting of access were considered in terms of what this may mean for community accessibility.
The nature of the research
The research undertaken in this thesis represents the processes embarked upon as a result of trying to gain access to a tract of land for the purpose of setting up a community garden. Preliminary steps involved establishing contact with existing gardens and supporting bodies to obtain information regarding the process involved in approaching a landholder about access to that land. However, the difficulties encountered in those initial stages led to a reassessment of the idea of access, in that the issue at hand appeared to be access to information and the networks through which this flows. The research direction continued to evolve over the course of the fieldwork, and reflects the process undertaken on a personal level: firstly, to access information on community gardens, and second, to enhance this accessibility for others. This research follows the tradition of participatory action research. Hence, a role was undertaken of acting in a voluntary capacity within the Promotions Working Group of a representative network of gardens – the Australian City Farms and Community Gardens Network (ACFCGN). This network acts to provide information, advice and support to community gardens; currently much of its activities are maintained by state coordinators. This role involved assessing issues surrounding awareness of community gardens, including how people were finding out about gardens, how to increase the exposure of gardens, ensuring adequate information flows within the network and liaising with other community and government groups and individuals.
The research involved acting in that capacity, interviewing and talking with gardeners and individuals involved in the ACFCGN and local Council and searching for ways to enhance connections and information flows between various bodies. The information gained was interpreted and documented as ‘findings’, as was the process of contacting individuals and the issues arising throughout, as these can represent core components of how access was and is granted. At all times, attempts were made to reflect upon the process in light of the perspective and history which led to this thesis. This included the recording of activities and thoughts in a diary and reflection on these in light of the ‘lens’ through which community gardens and bodies such as the ACFCGN were seen, which evolved over the course of the research.
While all interviews and discussions were qualitative and open-ended, questions which were always sought to be included can be found in Appendix I. However, these questions reflect a highly malleable framework. As various relationships evolved over the course of the research, some individuals provided greater sources of information than others: this also varied with an individual’s personality . Hence, gaining the confidence of or simply getting to know people, was embarked upon both in terms of fulfilling the role for ACFCGN as well as a learning process in terms of how to navigate the spaces between us, as a path of ‘sustainability’. Again, this is reminiscent of participatory action research; learning about and reflecting upon a process or theory, by undertaking or engaging with it. Such action and documentation is an example of the possible behaviour of embedded or active academics, discussed in Chapter 1. Hence, attempts were made to ascertain and document what it was that an ‘academic’ was able to bring to the position as a volunteer for the ACFCGN, and what the status of an academic meant in terms of access to information, technology and to individuals. That is, what networks are accessed as an academic, and how can they be of benefit to an organisation such as the ACFCGN?
Finally, the research was not designed to produce a ‘how to’ or a framework for developing access to community gardens. Rather, the thesis was seen as a space for reflection upon one path undertaken in the attempt to enhance communication and information flows, to develop the ‘edges’, to enact the theory of developing the spaces between various bodies. In this instance, this refers to spaces within and between community gardens, affiliated bodies and the wider community, in an attempt to more fully situate the former bodies within the wider population, as opposed to distinct from it. The incorporation or consideration of the paths taken by others was seen as essential to this, to reflect upon the diverse ways in which individuals seek to communicate, debate and act. Consideration of these issues is an appropriate context for the elaboration of what may be ‘sustainable’; how various individuals and bodies can establish and maintain the spaces for debate, collaboration and action regarding the means of their existence. |