Available via license: CC BY-NC
Content may be subject to copyright.
Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geograe – 2018, DOI:10.1111/tesg.12337, Vol. 00, No. 0, pp. 00–00.
WINDOW ON THE NETHERLANDS
OWNERSHIP AND MEMBERSHIP: PRACTICES
AND EXPERIENCES OF NEIGHBOURHOOD
RESIDENTS IN THE WIJSGEREN COMMUNITY
GARDEN IN AMSTERDAM
BAS SPIERINGS*, ILSE VAN LIEMPT* & EMIEL MALIEPAARD**
*Faculty of Geosciences, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Utrecht University, PO
Box 80115, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: B.Spierings@ uu.nl; I.C.vanLiempt@uu.nl
**Nijmegen School of Management, Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Radboud
University Nijmegen, PO Box 9108, 6500 HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands. E-mail: E.Maliepaard1@
gmail.com
Received: September 2016; accepted July 2018
ABSTR ACT
City governments worldwide have embraced urban agriculture, including community gardening, for
the multiple societal benefits which they promise. Many academic studies have also emphasised and
celebrated the benefits of community gardening but the debate surrounding it increasingly takes a
more critical stance by also paying attention to the societal drawbacks. This paper aims to further
enrich this more critical debate by analysing processes of social inclusion and social exclusion in and
around the community garden in the Wijsgeren neighbourhood of Amsterdam. By looking at the
practices and experiences of both gardeners and non-gardeners, processes of inclusion and exclusion
are unravelled in terms of ownership and membership of the community garden. In so doing,
exclusionary barriers based on non-ownership and non-membership are pinpointed in particular.
Key words: community gardens, neighbourhoods, inclusion, exclusion, ownership, membership
INTRODUCTION
Contemporary processes of remaking and
reimagining cities as healthy and sustainable
places include community gardens as im-
portant and much-used neighbourhood in-
terventions. There are many different types
of community gardens – including school,
therapy and intercultural gardens – but what
they share is that ‘they are not only a source
of food but provide other benefits, such as
community building, education and promot-
ing health’ (Guitart et al. 2012, p. 364). City
governments have enthusiastically embraced
the community gardening trend for the mul-
tiple benefits which they promise. Many aca-
demic studies on community gardening have
also emphasised and celebrated its multiple
societal benefits. These studies, for instance,
point out the relatively lower body mass in-
dexes (BMIs) for gardeners than for non-gar-
deners (Zick et al. 2013) due both to the intake
of healthier food coming from the gardens
(McCormack et al. 2010) and to more physi-
cal exercise when gardening (Wakefield et al.
2007). Improvements in physical health may
also be achieved, indirectly, through learning
about food production and consumption, as
© 2018 The Authors Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geograe published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal
Dutch Geographical Society / Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License, which permits use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
BAS SPIERINGS, ILSE VAN LIEMPT & EMIEL MALIEPAARD2
© 2018 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG
is the case for school gardens (Pudup 2008;
Hake 2017). In addition, gardening can be
experienced as stress reducing and working
in nature as therapeutic, with the potential to
improve the mental health of gardeners (Pitt
2014). Furthermore, and most importantly for
the purpose of this paper, community gardens
are often understood to have beneficial social
effects. They can build communities through
fostering social cohesion and inclusion in
neighbourhoods (e.g. Kingsley & Townsend
2006; Moulin-Doos 2013; Schermer 2014; Veen
et al. 2016; McVey et al. 2018). However, aca-
demic studies on community gardening have
increasingly taken a more critical stance by
also pointing to processes of social separation
and exclusion (e.g. Glover 2004; Tan & Neo
2009; Tornaghi 2014; Veen 2015; van Holstein
2016; Neo & Chua 2017).
This paper aims to further enrich the criti-
cal debate on community gardening by analys-
ing processes of social inclusion and exclusion
in and around the community garden in the
Wijsgeren neighbourhood in Amsterdam. By
looking at the practices and experiences of
gardeners and non-gardeners alike, processes
of both social inclusion and exclusion are un-
ravelled in terms of ownership and member-
ship of the community garden. In so doing,
exclusionary barriers based on non-owner-
ship and non-membership are pinpointed in
particular.
COMMUNITY GA RDENS: INCLUSIV E OR
EXCLUSI VE?
According to Holland (2004, p. 291), commu-
nity gardens – which are ‘managed and (may
be developed) by a neighbourhood commu-
nity’– serve a variety of aims such as the im-
provement of people’s health and education
as well as the development of that neigh-
bourhood community. More specifically, the
growing of vegetables, fruits, herbs and flow-
ers is seen as a ‘medium’ for social change in
the neighbourhood (Milbourne 2012). Many
studies on community gardens analyse the
beneficial effects of these changes in terms of
improved social interaction, cohesion and in-
clusion. This is particularly the case for studies
on gardens which are shared by socio-cultur-
ally diverse people.
Moulin-Doos (2013) and Schermer (2014),
for instance, discuss intercultural gardens –
in Germany and Austria respectively – where
people with culturally and socio-economically
different backgrounds interact and where mi-
grants regain their self-respect and their so-
cial inclusion and integration is improved. In
this context, Aptekar (2015) even argues that
the interaction among gardeners may result in
destabilisation of ‘societal hierarchies’ based
on cultural and socio-economic differences.
In a Melbourne-based case study, Kingsley
and Townsend (2006) focus on increased so-
cial cohesion (in terms of shared values and
behavioural codes), social support (in terms
of help and advice) and social connections (in
terms of bonds and networks among garden-
ers), as social benefits of community gardens.
In their study on community gardens in the
Netherlands, Veen et al. (2016) stress the in-
terplay between the same three types of social
benefits by pointing to an increased ‘width’
of social cohesion – because gardeners get to
know other gardeners, chat between them-
selves and also discuss more personal issues –
as well as to an increased ‘depth’ of social
cohesion – because mutual help and support
between gardeners improves. Altogether,
the evidence regarding the social benefits of
community gardens seems to support the ar-
gument that ‘community gardens grow much
more than just food, they grow community’, as
McVey et al. (2018, p. 40) put it while drawing
on several case studies in Edinburgh.
However, the argument that community
gardens grow communities is also questioned
and even criticised in the academic field.
Kingsley and Townsend (2006), for instance,
argue that the benefits with respect to social
cohesion, support and connections – as dis-
cussed above – appear limited to gardening
activities and the garden setting and they
found no evidence of these benefits getting
transferred beyond the garden(ing) confines,
although their research did not explore the
reasons for this. Moreover, it is important to
stress that participating in and accessing the
community garden can be limited by exclu-
sionary barriers such as ‘physical’, ‘material’,
OWNERSHIP AND MEMBERSHIP 3
© 2018 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG
‘socio-cultural’ and ‘ideological’ ones. An
often-discussed barrier in the context of com-
munity gardening is a physical fence with a
locked gate restricting and regulating access
to the garden. Schmelzkopf (1995), for exam-
ple, argues in a study on community gardens
in New York that fences and gates may result
in gardens being perceived by non-gardeners
as a ‘private’ space which is not accessible to
them. Despite the ambitions of community
gardens to be open and inclusive spaces,
fences and gates are often seen as unfortunate
necessities to keep out ‘unwanted others’, such
as vandals and alcoholics, as well as ‘non-de-
serving others’ because they do not belong to
the group of people working in the gardens
(van Holstein 2016).
Material barriers for participating in com-
munity gardens include a lack of both money
to pay the membership fee and time for un-
dertaking gardening activities – as (van der
Wilk 2015) found in his study on the Cremer
community garden in the Netherlands.
Drawing on Perth-based case studies,
Evers and Hodgson (2011) add that – even
when the time and money are available –
a lack of garden plots can be an important bar-
rier for participation. Owning and gardening
a plot enables the neighbourhood’s residents
to become members of the gardeners’ group
(van Holstein 2016). However, candidate or
would-be gardeners may have to be on a wait-
ing list for several years (Kurtz 2001).
One important socio-cultural barrier
pointed out by Glover (2004) in an American
case study is the ‘colour barrier’, which reflects
African Americans as mostly not participat-
ing in community gardening and perceiving
their local community garden as a ‘white folks
project’. In the case of socio-culturally diverse
gardeners, there may also be a language bar-
rier hampering encounters within the com-
munity garden. This is what Augustina and
Beilin (2012) found for migrant gardeners
in culturally diverse community gardens in
Melbourne. Drawing on several case studies in
the Netherlands, Veen (2015) found that the
group of gardeners within community garden
projects is often quite homogenous in terms of
socio-cultural characteristics. Moreover, when
participation is being promoted through the
social network of gardeners – as (Van der Wilk
2015) found in his study on the Cremer com-
munity garden in the Netherlands – the selec-
tivity of these networks may even strengthen
the homogeneity of the group of gardeners by
involving people with roughly the same char-
acteristics. Based on a case study in Singapore,
Tan and Neo (2009) add that, for people not
knowing any of the gardeners, the community
garden may transform from a public, inclusive
space into a private, exclusionary one. They
point to an ‘ideological barrier’ when ‘resi-
dents have imperfect knowledge of the oper-
ations and rationale behind the community
gardens’ (Tan & Neo 2009, p. 536).
THE WIJSGEREN COMMUNITY GA RDEN
The city government of Amsterdam (about
850,000 inhabitants) facilitates and promotes
the transformation of urban wastelands and
other public green spaces through urban ag-
ricultural activities. This is done with the aim
of contributing to the health, education, so-
cial cohesion and greening of the city (City
of Amsterdam 2014, 2017). A recent overview
made by the city shows a total of 114 commu-
nity gardens there (City of Amsterdam 2018).
One of these is the Wijsgeren community
garden, situated in the Slotermeer Zuidwest
distr ict in the Western part of Amsterdam. This
district is composed of a relatively large share
of non-Western immigrants (63%) compared
to both the city of Amsterdam (35%) and the
Netherlands as a whole (13%). Residents with
a Turkish or Moroccan ethnic background to-
gether make up 72 per cent of the non-Western
immigrants in this district (CBS 2017a). The
district is also quite a poor area, comprising
a relatively large share (20%) of households
below or around the social minimum com-
pared to the city of Amsterdam (15%) and the
Netherlands as a whole (8%) (CBS 2017b).
As part of a larger neighbourhood renewal
plan, the Ymere housing association initiated
the development of the Wijsgeren community
garden in 2009. The main aim was to facilitate
and foster meetings, in the neighbourhood
public space, between the wide diversity of
residents living in the area (Ymere 2009). The
plan for the community garden was developed
through the cooperation of several public and
BAS SPIERINGS, ILSE VAN LIEMPT & EMIEL MALIEPAARD4
© 2018 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG
private organisations, including the Ymere
housing association, and neighbourhood res-
idents. The actual design for the garden (see
Figure 1) was drawn up in cooperation with
the residents and comprises a shared herbal
garden, picnic bench and water pump, foot-
paths through as well as around the garden
and 12 individual garden plots of 4 to 6 m2
each – used for growing vegetables, fruits and
flowers. For the right to use a plot, the garden-
ers have to sign an agreement concerning the
management of the garden and pay a yearly
fee of 15 euro each to Ymere, which owns the
land. The number of garden lots is limited and
there is a waiting list for the attribution of user
rights. To ensure that the rules of the agree-
ment are complied with, a board of four gar-
dener members of Dutch ethnic background
was set up, whereas most gardeners (8 out of
12) have a Turkish ethnic background.
All the gardeners (ten women and two
men) who had signed the management agree-
ment were contacted with a request to partic-
ipate in this research (Kok 2012); however,
five of them declined, mainly due to language
barriers. The seven gardeners who did agree
to participate in the research consisted of
three women and one man with a Dutch eth-
nic background and two women and one man
with a Turkish ethnic background. Their ages
ranged from 29 to 58 years with an average
of about 41 years. Non-gardener interviewees
were recruited in the same streets as those
where the gardeners live by ringing the door-
bells of houses evenly distributed along them
and at different times of the day. As with the
gardeners, during the recruitment process five
non-gardeners refused to participate, mainly
due to the language barrier or to a lack of in-
terest. The twelve non-gardeners who agreed
to participate consisted of five women and
three men with a Dutch ethnic background,
two women with a Turkish ethnic background,
one woman with a Moroccan ethnic back-
ground and one man with a Antillean ethnic
background. Their ages ranged between 27
and 89 years with an average of about 58 years.
All the interviews were fully transcribed and
Source: Kok (2012).
Figure 1. The Wijsgeren community garden in Amsterdam.
OWNERSHIP AND MEMBERSHIP 5
© 2018 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG
coded thematically in Dutch. Quotes from
the interviews – with gender, age and ethnic
background added – have been translated into
English by the authors.
OWNERSHIP AND MEMBERSHIP
Our project findings show many successes of
the Wijsgeren community garden in facilitat-
ing and fostering encounters between people
living in its vicinity. Verbal encounters (i.e.
‘small talk’ but also more meaningful conver-
sations) as well as visual encounters (e.g. when
looking out of the window and when walking
past the garden) have improved public famil-
iarity in the neighbourhood. Because neigh-
bourhood residents spend more time outside
when gardening, they see each other more
often and also recognise each other better.
Improved recognition not only occurs among
gardeners but also between gardeners and
non-gardeners. Moreover, several respondents
argued that social interaction in neighbour-
hood public space has increased and improved
since the arrival of the garden. However, not
all our respondents agreed with the celebra-
tion of social success as also presented in the
public media. On the contrary, as one of the
non-gardeners (male, 55, NL) puts it:
The way things have been presented in the
magazines … that it [the garden] revives
the entire neighbourhood … that is not
true at all. It is really only a f ixed group
who own the garden plots and some related
people also come … and it is only Turkish
people who sit together. A couple of Dutch
people are there as well but they only work
their garden plot and then leave again.
Thus, the Wijsgeren community garden is
not considered a meeting space by everyone,
something we will elaborate on in the remain-
ing part of the paper by looking at (non-)own-
ership of the garden and (non-)membership
of and within the group of gardeners – already
hinted at in the previous quote.
The garden provides a picnic bench and has
footpaths through and around it which can
be used by all neighbourhood residents. The
absence of a gated fence also makes the gar-
den publicly accessible. However, despite the
fact that most residents of the neighbourhood
know that the garden is a public space, many
non-gardeners do not use or experience it as
such. Non-gardeners mention the long waiting
list for access to a garden plot as the most im-
portant reason for not using it. The number
of plots is limited and not owning one makes
non-gardeners experience the entire area as
‘not for them’ and ‘somebody else’s’ space.
One of the non-gardeners (female, 27, MO)
summarises the reason why the garden is not
being experienced as a public space as follows:
Because it is not my garden … Because I do
not own a garden plot.
Not owning a plot in the sense of not having ac-
quired the right to use the space for gardening
means tha t, for many non-gar deners, the garden
altogether loses most of its public, open feeling
and takes on a much more private, closed at-
mosphere. This resonates with Cooper’s (2007)
conceptualisation of ‘belonging’ in the sense of
a relationship between an object, right or space
on the one hand and a property-owner on the
other. Such a relationship distinguishes owners
from non-owners. In our case, this distinction
based on ownership has important implica-
tions for where non-plot-owning non-garden-
ers feel welcome and whether or not they visit
the garden. The few non-gardeners who do
make use of the community garden are mainly
family members and friends of the gardeners
but, in general, non-gardeners hardly ever use
the place – as one of the gardeners (female, 32,
NL) confirms, despite her attempts to welcome
other people into the garden:
I sometimes say to my neighbours or other
people that they are welcome … but they
rarely come.
Interviewer: Why do you think that is?
Well, you can tell that people are careful
… reluctant … Why that is? Well, I think it
has to do with the closed character of the
garden.
This closed nature of the garden, allied with
the distinction based on ownership, can also
be witnessed by non-gardeners who do want
to enter the garden but who first wait at the
edge to be invited in by gardeners. It is the
BAS SPIERINGS, ILSE VAN LIEMPT & EMIEL MALIEPAARD6
© 2018 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG
footpath around the garden that seems to de-
marcate where it begins or ends, between the
publicly accessible and the privately owned. As
such, the absence of a material and physical
fence enclosing the community garden seems
to have been substituted by an imaginative
and mental border or fence (see also Spierings
2012), simultaneously being produced by and
producing relations and interactions between
gardeners and non-gardeners (Blomley 2016).
Two thirds of the gardeners who signed an
agreement with the Ymere housing association
to own the right to use a plot are of Turkish
ethnic background. When looking at what
this implies for the daily use of the garden we
see that the dominant user group consists of
women of Turkish descent. In this context, one
of the non-gardeners (male, 73, AN) argues
that the people owning a garden plot should be
‘a bit more varied’; he also speaks of a ‘female
clique’. Another non-gardener (male, 55, NL)
combines both of these arguments into one by
talking about the garden as a ‘meeting place for
Turkish women’. Most of these women are very
neighbourhood-focused and therefore visit the
garden more often and spend more time there
than other gardeners. One of the female gar-
deners (58, TU) explains this, saying that she
does not have a job and therefore she consid-
ers the garden a ‘nice activity’, undertaken to-
gether with her female friends who mostly also
live in the Wijsgeren neighbourhood.
When using t he garden the women of Turkish
descent usually communicate in Turkish with
each other; according to one of them (62, TU)
this happens ‘automatically’ and is therefore
not done on purpose. However, several neigh-
bourhood residents feel that they are being
excluded when these women communicate in
their native language. One of the non-garden-
ers (male, 74, NL) explains his experience after
having taken up a personal invitation by some
of the female gardeners of Turkish descent to
join them for tea in the garden:
So, I went there but they were all speaking
Turkish and then I thought ‘This is not
nice’. I could not take part in the conver-
sation at all.
Moreover, several respondents – gardeners as
well as non-gardeners – argued that the inten-
sity of contact occurring in the community
garden is higher within than between ethnic
groups. This can be witnessed, for instance,
when looking at how the picnic bench is being
used. According to one of the non-gardeners
(female, 56, NL), the bench is used by ‘either
Dutch or Turkish people’ and is only shared by
both groups of gardeners during official meet-
ings regarding the management of the garden.
One of the gardeners (female, 39, NL) even
talks about ‘strong segregation’ in the garden,
based on differences in terms of language
skills – as already illustrated above – as well as
cultural values and preferences. A telling ex-
ample of the latter can be found when taking
a closer look at the types of activity performed
in the garden. In addition to spending time on
gardening activities, the women of Turkish de-
scent use it as an important space for socialis-
ing with other women of the same background
and take the time to do so while, for Dutch
people, gardening is much more an individual
and efficient undertaking. As one of the gar-
deners of Dutch descent (female, 32) puts it:
When Turkish women come here [the gar-
den], they often bring along their friends and
they really make a cosy event out of it. They
can easily spend a whole afternoon in the
garden with tea and food … whereas, when
Dutch people come here, they are focused
on gardening and often leave afterwards.
When using the garden as a space for quite
extensive socialising, the women of Turkish
descent perform a wide variety of garden-
ing-related activities – in addition to weeding
and watering – including:
Enjoying sitting … drinking tea … chatting
… watching how the plants are growing …
and where you are going to let them grow
(female gardener, 58, TU).
Thus, the Wijsgeren community garden reveals
a considerable degree of ‘parallel lives’ among
gardeners which depends on whether they be-
long to a group with particular gender, ethnic,
cultural and language characteristics. This res-
onates with Cooper’s (2007) conceptualisation
of ‘belonging’ in the sense of a relationship of
connection with a social group possessing par-
ticular characteristics, including those men-
tioned above. This relationship distinguishes
group members from non-members. In our
OWNERSHIP AND MEMBERSHIP 7
© 2018 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG
case, this distinction based on membership
results in non-member non-gardeners feeling
less welcome in the garden and non-member
gardeners feeling less comfortable using the
space alongside the Turkish female garden-
ers without any substantial interaction. This is
similar to what Lofland (1998) describes as the
‘parochialism’ of urban public space, which
implies that a clear presence and spatial claim
of a certain group may result in other people
experiencing the public space as not an invit-
ing one for social interaction or even a visit.
CONCLUSION
Analysis of the Wijsgeren community garden
shows processes of both social inclusion and
social exclusion – operating together and simul-
taneously (see also van Holstein 2016; Neo &
Chau 2017). The practices and experiences of
gardeners and non-gardeners in and around the
community garden seem to produce processes
of inclusion when building communities based
on ownership and membership of the garden
but also when increasing and improving social
interaction in the neighbourhood public space
beyond the garden(ing) confines. However,
their practices and experiences seem to produce
processes of exclusion when creating barriers
based on non-ownership and non-membership.
The sense of (non-)ownership depends on
whether or not neighbourhood residents have
acquired the right to use a plot for gardening.
Most interestingly, a physical fence with a strong
restrictive and regulative effect on the acces-
sibility of the community garden to non-gar-
deners – as for example noted by Schmelzkopf
(1995) – can be substituted for a mental fence
with a similar effect based on a distinction be-
tween ownership and non-ownership. The sense
of (non-)membership depends on whether or
not residents belong to a group with particular
gender, ethnic, cultural and language charac-
teristics. In the Wijsgeren community garden,
intra-ethnic group encounters are more in-
tense than inter-ethnic ones. Like Augustina
and Beilin (2012), we found that this is related
to the language barrier but, most interestingly,
in our case not from the perspective of migrant
gardeners but from the non-migrant gardeners
and non-gardeners. Resonating with the work by
Cooper (2007) on ‘belonging’, we have provided
insights into how and why the relationships and
interactions of (non-)gardeners with both the
garden site and the social group(s) of gardeners
produce processes of inclusion and exclusion in
and around the community garden.
Acknowledgements
This paper draws on fieldwork done by Femke Kok
and Benno van der Wilk for their Master thesis in
Urban Geography. Both Master theses are part of
the ‘Seeking sustainability justice in cities: Healthy
foodscapes and social (in)equality’ project that was
funded by the late Ronald van Kempen as Dean of the
Faculty of Geosciences at Utrecht University. We would
like to express our gratitude to both students for their
assistance in the fieldwork, all respondents for their
participation and the Dean for his financial support.
REFERENCES
A, S. (2015), Visions of Public Space:
Reproducing and Resisting Social Hierarchies in a
Community Garden. Sociological Forum 30, 209–227.
A, I. & R. B (2012), Community
Gardens: Space for Interactions and Adaptations.
Procedia 36, 439–448.
B, N. (2016), The Boundaries of Property:
Complexity, Relationality, and Spatiality. Law &
Society Review 50, 224–255.
CBS (2017a), Kerncijfers Wijken en Buurten 2017.
Available at <https://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/>.
Accessed on 28 January 2018.
CBS (2017b), Kerncijfers Wijken en Buurten 2015.
Available at <https://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/>.
Accessed on 28 January 2018.
City of Amsterdam (2014), Voedsel en Amsterdam: Een
Voedselvisie en Agenda voor de Stad. Amsterdam: City
of Amsterdam.
City of Amsterdam (2017), Stadslandbouw. Available
at <https://www.amsterdam.nl/wonen-leefom-
geving/maatsch-initiatieven/stadslandbouw/>.
Accessed on 1 June 2017.
City of Amsterdam (2018), City Farming. Available at
<https://maps.amsterdam.nl/stadslandbouw/>.
Accessed on 5 February 2018.
C, D. (2007), Opening Up Ownership:
Community Belonging, Belongings, and the
Productive Life of Property. Law & Social Inquiry
32, 625–664.
BAS SPIERINGS, ILSE VAN LIEMPT & EMIEL MALIEPAARD8
© 2018 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG
E, A. & N.L. H (2011), Food Choices
and Local Food Access among Perth’s Community
Gardeners. Local Environment 16, 585–602.
G, T. (2004), Social Capital in the Lived
Experiences of Community Gardeners. Leisure
Sciences 26, 143–162.
G, D., P, G. & J. B (2012),
Past Results and Future Directions in Urban
Community Gardens Research. Urban Forestry &
Urban Greening 11, 364–373.
H, B.J. (2017), Gardens as Learning Spaces:
Intergenerational Learning in Urban Food
Gardens. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships
15, 26–38.
H, L. (2004), Diversity and Connections in
Community Gardens: A Contribution to Local
Sustainability. Local Environment 9, 285–305.
K, J. & M. T (2006), ‘Dig In’ to Social
Capital: Community Gardens as Mechanisms for
Growing Urban Social Connectedness. Urban
Policy and Research 24, 525–537.
K, F.N. (2012), Doe-Het-Zelven in het Groen:
Wie Plukken er de Vruchten van? (Master thesis,
Utrecht University).
K, H. (2001), Differentiating Multiple Meanings
of Garden and Community. Urban Geography 22,
656–670.
L, L.H. (1998), The Public Realm: Exploring
the City’s Quintessential Social Territor y. New York:
Aldine de Gruyter.
MC, L.A., M.N. L, N.I. L, &
M. S (2010), Review of the Nutritional
Implications of Farmers’ Markets and Community
Gardens: A Call for Evaluation and Research
Efforts. Journal of the American Dietetic Association
110, 399–408.
MV, D., R. N & P. S (2018), The
Motivations and Experiences of Community
Garden Participants in Edinburgh, Scotland.
Regional Studies, Regional Science 5, 40–56.
M, P. (2012), Everyday (In)
Justices and Ordinary Environmentalisms:
Community Gardening in Disadvantaged
Urban Neighbourhoods. Local Environment 17,
943–957.
M-D, C. (2013), Intercultural Gardens:
The Use of Space by Migrants and the Practice of
Respect. Journal of Urban Affairs 36, 197–206.
N, H. & C.Y. C (2017), Beyond Inclusion
and Exclusion: Community Gardens as Spaces of
Responsibility. Annals of the American Association of
Geographers 107, 666–681.
P, H. (2014), Therapeutic Experiences of
Community Gardens: Putting Flow in its Place.
Health & Place 27, 84–91.
P, M. (2008), It Takes a Garden:
Cultivating Citizen-Subjects in Organized
Garden Projects. Geoforum 39, 1228–1240.
S, M. (2014), Transnational at Home:
Intercultural Gardens and the Social Sustainability
of Cities in Innsbruck, Austria. Hábitat y Sociedad 7,
55–76.
S, K. (1995), Urban Community
Gardens as Contested Space. Geographical Review
85, 364–381.
S, B. (2012) Economic Flows, Spatial Folds
and Intra-Urban Borders: Reflections on City
Centre Redevelopment Plans from a European
Border Studies Perspective. Tijdschrift voor
Economische en Sociale Geografie, 103, 110–117
T , L.H.H. & H. N (2009), ‘Community in
Bloom’: Local Participation of Community
Gardens in Urban Signapore. Local Environment
14, 529–539.
T, C. (2014), Critical Geography of Urban
Agriculture. Progress in Human Geography 38,
551–567.
W, B. (2015), Tuinieren als Bron voor
Gemeenschap (Master thesis, Utrecht University).
van H, E. (2016), Transplanting, Plotting,
Fencing: Relational Property Practices in
Community Gardens. Environment and Planning
48, 2239–2255.
V, E.J. (2015), Community Gardens in Urban Areas:
A Critical Reflection on the Extent to Which They
Strengthen Social Cohesion and Provide Alternative
Food (Ph.D. thesis, University of Wageningen).
V, E.J., B.B. B, W. van den B, A.J.
V, & J.S.C. W (2016), Community
Gardening and Social Cohesion: Different
Designs, Different Motivations. Local Environment
21, 1271–1287.
W, S., F. Y, C. T, J. R,
& A. S (2007), Growing Urban Health:
Community Gardening in South-East Toronto.
Health Promotion International 22, 92–101.
Y (2009), Moestuinen in Amsterdam West.
Available at <http://www.ymere.nl/ymere/index.
asp?id=1896/>. Accessed on 14 April 2012.
Z, C., K. S, L. K-J, C. U
& B. M (2013), Harvesting More Than
Vegetables: The Potential Weight Control Benefits
of Community Gardening. American Journal of
Public Health 103, 1110–1115.
