Urban garden communities’ social capital as a support for climate change adaptations – a case study of Warsaw

The interview recordings (.mp3 files) were transcribed using the Trint application and then coded using an open list of tags. How the material obtained during the research was analysed was in line with the assumptions of methodological pragmatism in social research. This was based on the assumption that social reality is best understood by the actors involved, so the researcher should try to adopt the ‘point of view’ of the respondents. In making these assumptions, the principles of analysing the data obtained were applied; this is referred to as grounded theory (Charmaz 2005; Glaser & Strauss 2017):

- a theory emerges as the research material is analysed, and so ‘grounds itself’;

The procedure of coding (categorising data) consisted of ‘defining what is in the data’. As postulated by Charmaz (2005), coding, especially the early phase involving detailed analysis of the data, is attributed a dual role: not only does it allow a conceptual framework to be generated but it also helps the researchers to free themselves from their own assumptions, notions, emotions, and so on. According to the adopted grounded theory principle, the list of codes was constituted during the interview analysis, and the list remained open until the end. The tables in the Results chapter summarise the analysis of the interview transcripts.

As a result of the analysis, the determinants of the community’s potential to develop UG were identified. Triangulation was applied in data collection and analysis methods, confronting many sources. Triangulation was also applied to the team, which is diverse in terms of research approaches and experience (Konecki 2000).

A meta-analysis of the literature does show UG as a tool for climate change adaptation but in just a few articles. The first round of searching (keyword ‘urban garden’) resulted in: Scopus – 1,028 papers, Web of Science – 341 and ScienceDirect – 1,700. In the second round (filtering keywords ‘community garden’ or ‘urban agriculture’), we found 283, 49 and 227 papers, respectively. The last round (with keywords ‘adaptation’ and ‘climate change’ added), 30 papers in total were selected (Table 1).

An in-depth analysis finally identified eighteen papers. In a review study of the extent of agriculture-related research over the past 30 years, urban and peri-urban agriculture occupied 11%. These were published mainly in Asia and Africa (Viana et al. 2022), where poverty, population, extremes and food problems are high (FAO 2020). Urban agriculture has many benefits (Saha & Eckelman 2017), contributing to sustainable urban development (Zezza & Tasciotti 2010). A number of articles confirm that urban agriculture fosters climate adaptation by generating income, recreational and social interactions, biodiversity, mitigating pollution, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and acting as carbon sinks (ed. Otto-Zimmermann 2011; Thornbush 2015; Tomatis et al. 2023). It also improves the well-being of residents (Santo, Palmer & Kim 2016). Urban and peri-urban agriculture is a global trend to combat climate change, to increase food security and to create cities as liveable places (Brevik et al. 2020; Opitz et al. 2016). Agricultural systems directly or indirectly address 11 out of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (Viana et al. 2022). In other studies, the necessity of meticulous location planning, employing best practices and actively engaging stakeholders is emphasised to avoid adverse environmental and human impacts (Cooper et al. 2022; Egerer, Lin & Diekmann 2020).

A study aimed to characterise communities of gardeners showed that their core is usually no more than 10–15 people (Table 2). It is sufficient to run an average-sized UG. Concerning the level of involvement, the gardens record a higher level of interest at the beginning, which often gradually decreases. When the number of gardeners stabilises, UG continue to exist (if the leaders stay involved) or a decision to bring them to an end is considered. The core of the group is relatively constant – with some rotation within the membership. The core is sometimes made up of mentors; it usually takes care of the UG as a whole and consists of people with close ties to the founders – often activists, researchers and artists. This does not change the fact that UG are able to bring together a wider circle of people as guests of the organised events. In addition, there are also people who work in the gardens occasionally or only on their own account; in some UG, there are even several dozen occasional or independent gardeners. The third circle of involvement is made up of visitors, who take part in activities or simply spend their free time there. As for the demographic composition of the groups of gardeners, people belonging to most social groups can be found. Supervisors of UG often declared that among the most active of these are seniors and families. They emphasise the intergenerational nature of these endeavours. In the case of seniors, they are usually females with higher education, and with notable activity in civic and cultural initiatives. In the case of parents with children, they also tend to have a higher education and belong to the middle class. In the case of UG organised at cultural institutions, the closest neighbours are strongly involved. This aspect makes these communities somewhat similar to neighbourhood garden groups. Some respondents indicated the existence of another group – young professionals (mostly under 30 years old), gardening for personal satisfaction.

The leaders of the UG were also characterised and a typology consisting of four types was proposed (Table 3). The first, institutional employees are mostly permanent staff of community centres, libraries, schools and kindergartens – usually individual enthusiasts, nature lovers, hobby gardeners or herbalists (Krzosek-Hołody 2023). They transfer this passion into their professional lives. With educational and integrative exercises, they promote environmental or ecological activities. The second type – ‘amateur’ social activists (local leaders, members of informal groups) are most often motivated by concern and passion for nature and ecology. The ‘amateurs’ strongly appreciate the integrative potential of gardening as co-creation of social and friendly bonds and they treat it as an occupation, a hobby pursued after work or in retirement. Most of them do not have horticultural or related education and they tend to set up neighbourhood gardens. The third, ‘professional’ social activists are professionally connected with a broadly understood field of horticulture and related sciences, cultural animation or cultural and civic education. They often have formal education in a field related to the functioning of green areas and often represent NGOs. They recognise the ecological potential of UG and care for the ideas of sustainability, the sharing economy, food sovereignty, ecological biodiversity and natural farming methods. They are usually motivated by the desire to disseminate good practices and values, shape attitudes and build knowledge capital. They most often establish community gardens or urban farms with educational and productive functions. The last type, social activists – ‘heroes’ are particularly committed to UG and tirelessly act for the sake of an idea, sometimes at the expense of their own well-being. The research revealed a frequent phenomenon of ‘burnout’ among this type of a leader, caused by bureaucracy and formal obstacles.

A key component of the study of user awareness with regard to the role of UG in climate change adaptation, was to identify how users and organisers of UG perceive their functions (Table 4). The functions of UG were divided into those aimed to satisfy the primary needs (productive functions) and those derived from the secondary needs (including the ecological and social functions). We identified three types of UG: neighbourhood gardens (integrating the community or informal groups, improving the appearance of the neighbourhood); community gardens (more diverse, operate more broadly); and gardens at institutions. We also indicated the differences in the perception of these functions between the gardeners and their leaders. First, we focused on how leaders define the role of the projects they coordinate. According to the experts, the main purpose of UG is not food production, with the exception of cooperative urban farms; however, these are usually not commercially oriented. From the leaders’ perspective, the dominant functions of UG are ecology and education. Gardening activities tend to be justified through the concern for nature and ecology in the broadest sense (protection of biodiversity and dying wildlife, management of bio-waste, cleaning up the neighbourhood), and are also supposed to build an active civil cooperative society. Those who admitted to this type of motivation often declared a love for gardening itself. Experts also point to educational functions (dissemination of knowledge, good practices, values, ecological and civic awareness, shaping of attitudes of young people, horizontal education). According to gardeners, the dominant functions are integration, leisure and recreation, combined with taking care of mental and physical fitness – therapeutic functions. Concern for nature also seems to guide many of them. UG is also a source of valuable knowledge that helps people adapt to the changing reality. For some people, issues of healthy food and ‘unusual’ food (hard to find) are important. The leisure and recreation functions are sometimes closely linked to community integration. Thus, we can observe the multifunctionality of UG.

We identified (Table 5) social determinants for the development of UG, as seen through the eyes of gardeners and supporting experts. These are factors that determine: engagement, longevity and efficiency of UG. The availability of space factor is crucial for engagement and longevity. It is necessary to promote stability of land ownership, regulate the legal status of land and make it easier for organisers to acquire land for long-term lease. Gardens at local government institutions rarely achieve stability, as they usually use the land of other entities. The factor of crop ownership can be problematic in the case of institutional or community gardens as it is in direct conflict with the organisers’ social goals. In the neighbourhood gardens, the ‘privatisation’ of beds is not controversial, provided they are sufficiently accessible. For UG with edible crops, the produce ownership is extremely important. The loss of vegetables and fruits grown through hard work is one of the most important demotivating factors. The factor of proximity is especially important in the case of neighbourhood gardens, when gardening can be practised alongside other daily activities. The community factor positively influences all forms of UG by strengthening the relationships through the creation of common space, integration or education. Residents also get involved in neighbourhood gardens because they can meet people with whom they have already co-created a small, local community and friendship, even if they live further away. A garden cannot survive without regular work, as it requires constant commitment throughout the seasons. It should also be built on the basis of an operation model that includes elements to strengthen the motivation of gardeners with an appropriate organisational structure.

With a history of more than 100 years, UG is experiencing a renaissance in the 21st century (Keshavarz et al. 2016). The research shows that urban gardening is becoming the domain of active city dwellers, young families with children, teachers and NGOs. The weakness is the rather fragile longevity of community gardens, which is related to the poor persistence of gardeners. An initial high level of commitment decreases with time and the need for regular work. Factors responsible for the success of UG in Warsaw show the fragility of the legal conditions regarding ownership and longer-term prospects for leasing land. This is confirmed by Kochanowicz and Pankow (1999) and by Pikner, Willman and Jokinen (2020). Therefore, the proximity to one’s residence and the general accessibility of the land is also important (Butterfield 2020). The well-known 15-minute city theory comes to mind here, where urban gardens seem to find their prominent place (Limerick et al. 2023). A special group is emerging among gardeners who are not discouraged by adversity: sometimes at the expense of their own well-being, they are prepared to work for an initiative. Skilfully harnessing the potential of such personalities may be one of the key factors responsible for the future success of UG.