4.4 Article

Research-informed gardening activism: steering the public food and land agenda

期刊

LOCAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 20, 期 10, 页码 1247-1264

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2014.949643

关键词

political gardening; alternative urbanism; activism; public space; food; action-research

资金

  1. Flemish Science and Technology Agency, IWT-SBO SPINDUS 'Spatial Innovation, Planning, Design and User Involvement' [IWT 090080]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Drawing on the authors' personal experience in the Edible Public Space project ( Leeds, UK), this paper explores the spheres of influence and contradictions that shaped the project's trajectory. We identify and analyse the dynamics and contradictions at play in the formation of an urban gardening group grown out of a coming together of scholarly and committed action ambitions and aim to capture learning elements for scholarly activism, political gardening and radical urbanism. We explore the action research intervention with a focus on the role of spatial interventions in fostering social innovation in the public food and land agenda. We structure our discussion in a threefold conceptual framework: (i) a discussion on shifting planning arenas and their understanding in social innovation; (ii) an overview of the role of political gardening practices, in particular of food commons/food sovereignty initiatives, in envisioning and implementing alternative urbanism and (iii) a discussion on the action research nexus, through a thick case study description in which we also unpack our own engagement and positionality. Doing so, we aim to contribute to the creation of an active memory of political gardening. The paper will speak in particular to a rising number of researcher-gardeners-environmentalists, and aims to problematise the links between research-informed strategic thinking and actions, and the vocation of critical urban theory to provide and make visible alternatives for social change.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据