In defence of urban community gardens

Monika Egerer, Susan Karlebowski, Felix Conitz, Astrid E. Neumann, J. Schmack, Ulrike Sturm
{"title":"In defence of urban community gardens","authors":"Monika Egerer, Susan Karlebowski, Felix Conitz, Astrid E. Neumann, J. Schmack, Ulrike Sturm","doi":"10.1002/pan3.10612","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\nWith the boom in urban living has come a boom in urban gardening. In particular, urban community gardening is an increasingly popular form of horticultural production, community involvement and connection to nature. Through the establishment and management of community gardens, biodiversity can flourish, with community gardens as ‘hotspots’ of flora and fauna within the urban matrix. Gardeners can deeply connect with the natural elements of gardens and thus learn about and gain appreciation for the natural world. Such interactions can combat the loss of nature experiences in cities. Despite their benefits for nature and for people, community gardens are threatened ecosystems as often temporary fixtures in city landscapes due to lack of land tenure and policy protection.\n\nIn this perspective, we recognize community gardens as an important ecosystem in urban conservation and argue for the defence of urban community gardens by city policy. We formalize this activity and the value of these ecosystems with scientific evidence from ecological and social‐ecological research in 39 community gardens in Berlin and Munich, Germany.\n\nAlthough our data reveal that these gardens support large amounts of biodiversity and catalyse human‐nature connections, a lack of comprehensive documentation of social‐ecological benefits at the city level can make community gardens vulnerable to urban planning threats; we have seen losses of multiple research sites in the last 4 years of biodiversity research.\n\nPolicy implications: To protect community gardens now and for future urban generations, we call for systematic and comprehensive data collection on community gardening activities and policy support for these urban ecosystems. Some cities are starting to do this and this can be scaled out. We argue for the recognition of urban community gardens as a physical land use and also of the gardeners themselves as important habitat managers and stewards of urban biodiversity.\n\nRead the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.","PeriodicalId":508650,"journal":{"name":"People and Nature","volume":"38 32","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"People and Nature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10612","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

With the boom in urban living has come a boom in urban gardening. In particular, urban community gardening is an increasingly popular form of horticultural production, community involvement and connection to nature. Through the establishment and management of community gardens, biodiversity can flourish, with community gardens as ‘hotspots’ of flora and fauna within the urban matrix. Gardeners can deeply connect with the natural elements of gardens and thus learn about and gain appreciation for the natural world. Such interactions can combat the loss of nature experiences in cities. Despite their benefits for nature and for people, community gardens are threatened ecosystems as often temporary fixtures in city landscapes due to lack of land tenure and policy protection. In this perspective, we recognize community gardens as an important ecosystem in urban conservation and argue for the defence of urban community gardens by city policy. We formalize this activity and the value of these ecosystems with scientific evidence from ecological and social‐ecological research in 39 community gardens in Berlin and Munich, Germany. Although our data reveal that these gardens support large amounts of biodiversity and catalyse human‐nature connections, a lack of comprehensive documentation of social‐ecological benefits at the city level can make community gardens vulnerable to urban planning threats; we have seen losses of multiple research sites in the last 4 years of biodiversity research. Policy implications: To protect community gardens now and for future urban generations, we call for systematic and comprehensive data collection on community gardening activities and policy support for these urban ecosystems. Some cities are starting to do this and this can be scaled out. We argue for the recognition of urban community gardens as a physical land use and also of the gardeners themselves as important habitat managers and stewards of urban biodiversity. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
捍卫城市社区花园
随着城市生活的蓬勃发展,城市园艺也随之蓬勃发展。特别是,城市社区园艺是一种日益流行的园艺生产、社区参与和与自然联系的形式。通过建立和管理社区园艺,生物多样性得以蓬勃发展,社区园艺成为城市中动植物的 "热点"。园丁可以与花园中的自然元素深入交流,从而了解和欣赏自然世界。这种互动可以消除城市中自然体验的缺失。尽管社区园林对自然和人类都有益处,但由于缺乏土地使用权和政策保护,社区园林往往是城市景观中的临时固定物,是一个受到威胁的生态系统。在这个观点中,我们承认社区园林是城市保护中的一个重要生态系统,并主张通过城市政策保护城市社区园林。虽然我们的数据显示,这些花园支持大量生物多样性并促进人与自然的联系,但由于缺乏城市层面社会生态效益的全面记录,社区花园很容易受到城市规划的威胁;在过去 4 年的生物多样性研究中,我们已经看到多个研究地点遭到破坏:政策影响:为了保护现在的社区花园和城市的子孙后代,我们呼吁系统、全面地收集有关社区花园活动的数据,并为这些城市生态系统提供政策支持。一些城市已经开始这样做,而且可以推广。我们主张承认城市社区园林是一种有形的土地利用方式,同时承认园林工人本身是重要的栖息地管理者和城市生物多样性的守护者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Defining socioecological reciprocity: Intentionality, mutualism or collateral effect Dynamic reciprocal contributions between Indigenous communities and cultural keystone species: A study case in Western Ecuador Cultural stewardship in urban spaces: Reviving Indigenous knowledge for the restoration of nature Communities in ecosystem restoration: The role of inclusive values and local elites' narrative innovations Reintroduced, but not accepted: Stakeholder perceptions of beavers in Germany
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1