Reclaiming Urban Space: A Study of Community Gardens in Poznań

Community gardens are part of the list of urban agriculture spaces that we can find in the cities of the world. Thereby, the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (CLF) – an academic centre housed in the Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Department of Environmental Health Sciences – provides an overview of the urban agriculture in which community gardens are presented (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Considering community gardens as one of the types of urban agriculture, we can currently understand that a community garden is any piece of land gardened by a group of people utilising shared plots on private or public land. Likewise, these are outdoor socialisation centres, natural spaces, leisure spaces and educational spaces.

Currently, there is no single coherent theory pertaining to the subject matter of community gardens. In practice, this topic comprises theoretical, methodological and instrumental aspects deriving from various social, economic, ecological and spatial disciplines. Scholarly works helping to shape the theories concerning community gardens can be divided into three major research currents (Smit et al. 1996; Reyburn 2002). First, there is research on the contemporary city, emphasising especially aspects of its social and environmental unsustainability. It is mostly adopted by architects, urban planners, geographers, sociologists and ecologists (Moran, Fernández 2012). Second, the issue of urban/suburban agriculture as well as allotment/community gardens is addressed by anthropologists, ethnologists, sociologists or social geographers (Boukharaeva, Marloie 2010). Lastly, the analysis of urban food systems, within the subject matter of which, agroecology and the issue of food sovereignty are developed to reflect the problems that occur when not all city residents have access to safe and nutritious diet following their cultural preferences. This research current is developed mostly by agronomists, economists and dieticians (Aubry, Pourias 2013; Bredley, Galt 2014; Shillington 2013; Tornaghi 2017, to cite just a few).

The city is one of the most complex and heterogeneous creations of mankind. Throughout centuries, the city has proved to have a great capacity for evolutions, transformations and adaptations, which poses difficulties for researchers and scientists striving to understand and analyse its current and future condition. In 2030, according to the UN forecast, the world population will reach the number of 9 billion inhabitants, out of which two thirds, i.e. 6 billion people (twice as many as today) will live in cities. From this perspective, societies are urban and the urban lifestyle is highly expanding. One could say that it is almost colonialism which imposes, step by step or even by leaps, the lifestyle characteristic of cities in rural environments accustomed to traditional ways of living. The global urban community is subject to homogenisation: the same ways and styles of living, the same habits, clothes, and technological devices as well as the same gastronomy and way of thinking. In this way, as Toledo and Barrera-Bassols (2008) claim, the homogenic character of globalisation poses a threat to all manifestations of diversity and “the city, which used to be a creation uniting common languages, codes and fabrics of society is becoming a product: society is disappearing and neighbourly bonds are getting disintegrated” (Lefebvre 1972: 85).

Nevertheless, in view of the pervasive urban homogenisation, there occur simultaneous processes of re-agragrianisation and appreciation of different kinds of agriculture which go counter to the aforesaid tendency. In accordance with the conception of urban and suburban agriculture, a vast and complex range of activities connected with the food production in cities is developing. The processes of re-agrarianisation in cities frequently occur in areas which are either underestimated or devoid of value for housing, commercial or industrial investments. Activities towards re-agrarianisation are undertaken mostly by neighbouring communities or non-governmental organisations which seek new meeting places. Thanks to this, they restore the value of a given space, revitalise their districts and closest surroundings. What is prioritised in community gardens is social cooperation rather than individualism; nature and ecology are opposed to the overwhelming and monotonous city that imposes the dictatorship of bricks and asphalt. Community gardens are the reflection of the society and citizens who form them; therefore it is possible to encounter a great variety of their kinds – from botanical gardens to microparks, family gardens, educational gardens, social gardens, gardens for pensioners and therapeutic gardens (Busquets, Fàbregas 2008). But it is in this heterogeneity and social diversity that their strength is to be found; this is so because these are spaces where different generations, cultures and socio-economic classes meet. Community gardens have become strategic players when it comes to the future of some free urban spaces (industrial areas, wasteland, unused backstreets, old heaps etc.). Numerous debates on the topic of the city model begin in community gardens and reach the level of local, regional or even national policy. Therefore community gardens are not only areas for vegetable growing, but also constitute cultural and political spaces which serve to build social bonds and are generators of new projects for the whole city (McKay 2011). There is an agreement as to the functions community gardens can perform and benefits they can bring to contemporary cities. Those functions are: social, economic, territorial and environmental. Fig. 2 gives a comprehensive frame of reference.

Fig. 2

In the available state-of-the-art literature, one can find a description of the functions and multidimensionality of urban agriculture. The diagram by Canadian researcher Eric Duchemin (2009) is worth paying attention to. It connects urban agriculture with education, urban management, economic development, rest and health, food security, natural environment and social relations (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3

Community gardens bring a host of positive consequences to cities and their residents:

From a social point of view, community gardens contribute to the improvement of life quality as they offer an opportunity for rest and recreation. Social bonds strengthen as a result. Community gardens are places where neighbours discuss not only agricultural issues but also current matters and personal problems. These gardens frequently replace such meeting spots as squares, bars or shopping centres, which also limits the possibility, for instance, of drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes or gambling. From the educational perspective, community gardens foster multidirectional education (people learn from one another) and intergenerational learning (adults share their knowledge with children). As regards physical and mental health, community gardens offer the possibility of light physical and mental activity as well as contribute to an increase in the number of consumed vegetables, which improves the eating habits of city residents.

Although urban agriculture still remains a residual, marginal and interstitial practice, fraught with contradictions and troubled by constraints (Tornaghi 2017: 782), the spread of community gardens and other forms of urban agriculture in the cities of the global North indicates that in the future it will no longer be something weird or marginal. Debates concerning food sovereignty, the participatory management of urban spaces, an economy of solidarity and social ecology intertwine and reach the highest spheres of political and economic power through the process of capillarity.

In contrast to traditional allotment gardening which has an over one-hundred-year-long history and a well-established position, community gardens in Poland constitute a new phenomenon (Kałużna, Mizgajski 2016; Skrzypczak 2017a). Although allotment gardens fulfil social, economic and ecological functions, in reality their accessibility for the general public is very restricted (Orzechowska-Szajda, Podolska 2013). Since they are assigned to an individual user, surrounded by a fence and locked, a large number of urbanites in Poland have no access to them (Speak at al. 2015; Skrzypczak 2017a). In addition, allotment gardens have recently changed their function and are now used mostly as areas for passive recreation and not for growing food (Kałużna, Mizgajski 2016; Giedrych, Poniży 2013; Szkup 2013).

It is also known that in Polish cities there is a dearth of controlled green areas. According to the standards of the World Health Organisation, there should be 50 m² of this type of area per one resident of an agglomeration. However, in Polish cities which are regional centres, the controlled green area ranges from 38.7 m² in Bydgoszcz (the highest ratio) to 13.7 m² in Szczecin (Maćkiewicz, Szczepańska 2017). Furthermore, when discussing new housing investments, city residents’ needs for contact with the environment are not usually taken into consideration and very limited greenery is provided to new occupants, i.e. lawns or small flower beds (Pokorski, Siwiec 1998; Maćkiewicz at al. 2018).

The issues mentioned above undoubtedly contribute to the observed dynamic development of a new form of urban gardening in Poland, namely community gardens. They form additional green areas in cities, which allow the utilisation of wasteland, neglected or even degraded areas. Although it is worth remembering that thanks to the established legal regulations – guaranteed by the Act on Family Allotment Gardens of 13th December 2013 (Journal of Laws of 2014, item 40) – the position of allotment gardens in the urban space is more stable in comparison to community gardens, which can be used only for a certain period. In contrast to allotments, where each garden holder cultivates his or her own plot individually, in community gardens a group of people works together. It helps to make new contacts and strengthen relationships. It is very significant since community gardens are usually a meeting place for local activists and people living in the vicinity of the garden (Latkowska 2012; Kałużna, Mizgajski 2016; Skrzypczak 2017b). They are open mostly to the general public, which means that all people can use them if they follow the established rules and want to tend to plants and relax in urban greenery. Ecological farming as well as large-scale recycling are undertaken in community gardens. In this way, people are taught how to care for the natural environment and protect natural resources. Plants are often grown in various recycled containers. Moreover, the garden is usually furnished with recycled materials as well (Latkowska 2012, 2016; Skrzypczak 2017a).

As mentioned above, community gardens have been developing in Poland for only a few years. The exact beginnings are difficult to establish but they certainly emerged after 2010. Single initiatives of this kind have proved so inspiring for many local communities that currently we can even start talking about a certain fashion for creating urban community gardens. As Skrzypczak (2017a: 2) claims, we can observe not just an emergence of a new approach to urban greenery but a form of social mechanism which can be repeated in various places. Support for this type of initiatives is also received from different types of projects – both nationwide (e.g. Our Community Garden (Nasz Ogród Społeczny), Cultural Wasteland (Nieużytki Sztuki), Green Bench (Zielona Ławeczka) and local, e.g. Nowa Huta Gardens (Ogrody Nowej Huty) – as well as contests, e.g. Social Initiative for the Environment (Inicjatywy Obywatelskie dla Środowiska) financed by National Fund for Environment Protection and Water Management (Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Środowiska i Gospodarki Wodnej). In addition, funds are collected by means of local initiatives, participatory budgets or crowdfunding (Latkowska 2016).

As regards initiatives concerning community gardens which embrace the area of the whole country, there is one, launched in 2014 by Green Cross Poland, which deserves special attention – Our Community Garden. It is a programme for awarding grants for establishing community gardens (Kałużna, Mizgajski 2016). Neighbouring communities can apply for various kinds of support for matters related to the gardens themselves and to the development of neighbourly dialogue. As part of this enterprise, an Internet portal (www.naszogrodspeleczny.pl) was created as well as a guide describing step by step the necessary actions that must be taken to establish a community garden. The major goals of the programme – Our Community Garden – are the following: aid in building local social capital in cities, improving the urban aesthetics in the public space, sharing expertise on horticulture and biological processes taking place in soil, supporting food sovereignty, providing local groups with tools and counselling. During the pilot stage of the project, 10 community gardens were created in different parts of Poland, including, for instance, the first community garden in the Lubuskie Province (‘Short Street’ Community Garden – Ogród Społeczny Krótka) in Gorzów Wielkopolski and Gdańsk (‘Reduta’ Centre Garden – Ogród Centrum Reduta). By the middle of 2016, another 16 gardens were established and 7 more were in the initial phase of organisation (Kałużna, Mizgajski 2016, www.naszporatlspołeczny.pl).

Another interesting nationwide project promoting community gardening is the one by an artist E. Jabłońska (Cultural Wasteland – Nieużytki Sztuki) cofinanced by the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage in 10 cities (Białystok, Gdańsk, Lublin, Łódź, Olsztyn, Tarnów, Warszawa, Wrocław, Zielona Góra) that concerns a free-of-charge lease of green belts, lawns and some areas adjoining public galleries and museums. It is a proposal for the public to engage in the process of intervention not only in the city space but also in the sphere of art. Providing residents, neighbours and the public at large with access to areas belonging to galleries or museums may become, in consequence, the beginning of the process of creating new spaces for meeting based on mutual exchange fostering cooperation and joint responsibility in action (Latkowska 2016, www.nieuzytkisztuki.elajablonska.com).

Out of all current local initiatives in Poland related to community gardens, it is necessary to give special prominence to the project by Nowa Huta Gardens organised by the C.K. Norwid Culture Centre in Cracow in cooperation with the international steel and mining company ArcelorMittal S.A. and under the auspices of the President of Cracow and the Chairman of the Municipal Council. This initiative aims at popularising knowledge about horticulture, ecology as well as promoting the integration of local communities around the idea of urban greenery. The project is addressed to the residents and all well-wishers of the district. The actions undertaken open up an opportunity for meetings and common activities of, among others, adolescents, families with children and senior citizens. The major task of the participants in the project in a given year is common work on the establishment of two community gardens in the area of Nowa Huta, one of Cracow’s districts. They have created twelve gardens so far (Latkowska 2016, www.ogrodynh.pl).

Even though the trend for the development of community gardens in Poland is increasingly noticeable, no official and exhaustive record of all existing gardens has been developed so far. An attempt at marking all community gardens on the map of Poland was made by the Internet portal Our Community Garden (Kałużna, Mizgajski 2016). The actual number of gardens, however, is considerably higher than the one presented there. It must be emphasised though that creating an exhaustive record of community gardens would be very difficult as only some of them have their own Internet websites. Furthermore, in the case of some gardens only a limited number of people know about their existence and the information about them can be obtained via such social networking sites as facebook.com. Nonetheless, it seems that the greatest number of community gardens are situated in Warsaw, although it cannot be stated with absolute certainty because of the above-mentioned reasons. There can be found 21 gardens of the type, for instance, Hoe and Sun (Motyka i Słońce), Bem Fort (Fort Bema), ‘Shrub’ Community (Spółdzielnia Krzak), Rose Spade (Różany Szpadel), and their unusual names point to the creativity of their founders (Latkowska 2016, www.bujnawarszawa.pl, www.um.warszawa.pl, warszawa.naszemiasto.pl). Warsaw community gardens are created by informal groups, but also by societies and institutions. Support for Warsaw gardens is also offered by the Greenery Board (Zarząd Zieleni), municipal organisational unit from the capital city of Warsaw. Taking into consideration the scale of the whole area, it seems that community gardens in the capital are the best organised of all the Polish cities. Warsaw gardeners have their own Internet website – www.bujnawarszawa.pl – which presents some basic information about Warsaw community gardens, including a map showing their locations. Furthermore, there is the Flying School of Urban Gardeners (Latająca Szkoła Ogrodników Miejskich) in the capital city which offers free-of-charge workshops and counselling both for people engaged in tending to community gardens and for groups planning to create new ones. In addition, there is an Open Warehouse of Horticultural Materials (Otwarty Skład Materiałów Ogrodniczych) in Warsaw, which functions as a platform by means of which social garden initiatives can obtain and share various kinds of stock (e.g. equipment, seeds, building materials). Since 2017, Warsaw Community Garden Harvest Festivals have been organised during which various workshops, presentations and contests take place.

The study concerned all community gardens (14) which were established and designed in Poznań in the years 2013–2017. At first, 4 individual in-depth interviews were carried out with representatives of the Generator Malta project and members of the ‘Bathing Beach’ Collective Association (Stowarzyszenie Kolektyw Kąpielisko) involved in the development and management of community gardens in Poznań. The interviews took the form of a direct talk which lasted around 60–90 minutes. The questions concerned, among others, the origins of community gardens, the founders and first initiatives, the modes of communication between the users of community gardens, the location and management of the gardens. The next step involved the analysis of social networking websites which publish information on upcoming and past events. Thanks to a detailed analysis of Internet portals, message boards and social networking sites, it was possible to obtain first-hand information and to collect quantitative data about meetings having, among others, horticultural, recreational, artistic, entrepreneurial or educational character. A considerable amount of significant information for the research in question was obtained from meetings in the community gardens. It was also then when an inventory of garden infrastructure as well as cartographic and photographic documentation were made. In addition, in order to understand the specificity of community gardening, a comprehensive analysis of the state-of-the-art literature was conducted. At the final stage of the study, interviews with the same people were repeated using an analogical formula to the first one. The questions concerned the future of community gardens, existing and potential threats, financial issues as well as cooperation with non-governmental organisations and the city authorities. In total, 8 in-depth interviews were conducted and recorded from October 2016 to August 2018.

In order to analyse closely the events organised in the community gardens in Poznań, gardens from the Łazarz district were selected. In this area, the number of gardens and activities undertaken is the largest. Moreover, gardens selected for the analysis were established almost at the same time. However, both these initiatives were of different character. The Łazarz Garden was founded by Generator Malta so it was a kind of top-down action. Whereas setting up the ‘Bathing Beach’ Collective community garden was a bottom-up activity. Interestingly though, people involved in setting up this garden came mainly from outside the district.

It is not without a reason that the creators of the Generator Malta Programme (Program Generatora Malta) and the ‘Bathing Beach’ Collective Association decided to establish community gardens in Łazarz. According to statistical data, over 11,000 people have left this district since 2000 (www.lazarz.pl). Furthermore, opinion polls carried out by the ‘Bathing Beach’ Collective among the residents revealed that the district of Łazarz had a very narrow range of cultural events. In addition, the residents expressed the need to participate in the local life.

The analysis concerned activities which took place in the community gardens of Łazarz (Fig. 5), i.e. the Łazarz Garden and the ‘Bathing Beach’ Collective in the years 2014–2017. The number and character of meetings were determined on the basis of internet information posted by the organisers of both gardens on social networking sites. All the events that took place in the gardens revealed the character of the activities which can be divided into the following categories: horticultural, artistic, recreational, craft, environmental and educational, entrepreneurial and others (Table 2). This division was meant to emphasise the major functions served by a given community garden for residents.

Fig. 5

Community garden – the Łazarz Garden

In the period under analysis, various events in the Łazarz Garden took place mostly during summer months, i.e. from June to September, on average twice a week. From 2014 to 2017, there were as many as 110 meetings on the premises of the garden and 40% of them had the character of artistic events (Fig. 6). Most of them were concerts, art workshops and theatrical performances (Picture 3). Another 34% of the events were connected with recreation: common feasts, picnics and an outdoor cinema. Those devoted to garden farming made up 12% of all meetings, and the ones concerning DIY and the development of garden furniture – 6%. Events related to environmental education amounted to 5% and those belonging to the category of ‘others’ (among others, yoga classes, dance workshops, charity sales) made up 3% of all meetings.

Fig. 6

Picture 3

Picture 4

Community garden – the ‘Bathing Beach’ Collective

In the examined period, the events organised in the community garden the ‘Bathing Beach’ Collective were held in the summer season from May to September, on average once a week. They also took place on holidays, for instance, on Children’s Day. There were also a few-day-long cycles of meetings. The ‘Bathing Beach’ Collective has initiated 80 events in the area of Kasprowicz Park since the beginning of its garden-related activity, i.e. since May 2014. The number did not include organisers’ meetings in the neighbouring ‘Circle’ Residents’ Club which concerned garden issues. In view of the conducted analysis, it is clear that the greatest number of events organised in the ‘Bathing Beach’ Collective community garden were connected with gardening activities – 25% (Fig. 7). Much time was devoted to the development of garden infrastructure since as many as 20% of all meetings concerned the production of garden furniture and garden street architecture. Just as many events had a recreational character – residents had common feasts and could integrate with one another. Still other events, specific for a given garden, were events promoting entrepreneurship – 15%. Some other events, popular with garden users, were garage sales, preserves fairs as well as professional workshops. Artistic as well as educational and environmental activities made up the lowest percentage of all events – 13 and 7% respectively.

Fig. 7

Comparison of gardens

When comparing the activities of the two community gardens situated in the same district of Łazarz, one can come to a conclusion that both gardens have a multifunctional character, although the structure of the events held there differs significantly. This dissimilarity may be attributed to many factors such as: location, direct neighbourhood, area, area type (e.g. transitive, separated), infrastructure, profile of the initiating entity, cooperating units.

In the ‘Bathing Beach’ Collective the structure of the implemented activities was more diverse and balanced (Fig. 7, Fig. 8). In addition, the events organised in this garden implemented all four major functions of community gardens: social, economic, territorial and environmental (Fig. 2), whereas in the Łazarz Garden, the structure of activities was dominated by artistic events, recreation and integration, which accounted for almost ¾ of all actions (Fig. 6). What is more, in this community garden activities related to the development of entrepreneurship were not implemented. It seems that several factors have contributed to this structure of events in the Łazarz Garden. First of all, this garden was initiated by the Generator Malta programme which, as part of the Malta Festival, is strongly associated with the organisation of cultural events. What is more, the Łazarz Garden maintains close cooperation with the neighbouring ‘Circle’ Residents’ Club which is a local culture centre. The location of the Łazarz Garden in the immediate vicinity of blocks of flats and culture centre favours the organisation of recreational neighbourhood events. In addition, the lack of a clear separation of the garden area from the surrounding space, i.e. transitive character of the place hinders cultivation as well as adversely influences the development of garden infrastructure (Fig. 5). The above-mentioned reasons certainly account for the fact that gardening was not the main activity undertaken in the Łazarz Garden.

Fig. 8

Picture 5

The situation of the ‘Bathing Beach’ Collective garden is different. The larger area of the garden and its fence protection guarantee more space for agricultural activity as well as the security of crops and infrastructure (Fig. 6). A higher level of security makes the organisation of entrepreneurial events easier. They were only held in the garden of the ‘Bathing Beach’ Collective and took the form of an exchange and sale of preserves, books and clothes (for instance, as part of garage sales or preserves markets (Fig. 4). The more diversified and balanced structure of the events organised in the garden was also determined by the fact that it was a grassroots initiative of a group of various people, i.e. with different backgrounds, education and interests, united around the idea of urban space revitalisation and the integration of the local community through joint activities in a community garden.

Picture 6