Responses towards Guerrilla gardening, considered as informal practices of
“cultivating of land that does not belong to the gardener” (Swartwood, 2012), provide further insights into the responses to street art and its causes. So far, it has been acknowledged that street art garners positive responses due to their ability to transform a non-descript urban fabric into something that can be considered interesting and aesthetically pleasing; street art also presents messages that frequently address non-conformist ideals to which many are opposed – often they hold a certain political significance or promote escapism from the features of normal everyday life. However, the responses to guerrilla gardening are somewhat different due to their biophilic qualities that add a further dimension to the justification of responses to intuitive informal urban design interventions witnessed in street art. Biophilia is described by Kellert as “the inherent human inclination to affiliate with natural systems and processes, especially life-like features of the nonhuman environment” (Kellert, 2011, p. 3).
According to Kellert, “ this tendency became biologically encoded because it proved instrumental in enhancing human physical, emotional, and intellectual fitness during long course of human evolution” (ibid). Briefly mentioned earlier in section 3.5 of this thesis is the impact of Guerrilla Gardening on the overall
113
design aesthetic of an environment. Here, undesirable places are picturesquely transformed into environments that are sometimes are forerunner to subsequent gentrification (Douglas, 2011).
Whilst acknowledging that studies into urban landscapes reveal the general public’s preferences towards environments indicating “care, control and tidiness”
(Nassauer, 1995; Ford, 2000), Weber et al explore responses and perceptions towards ‘wild urban vegetation’ amongst urban space users (Weber et al, 2014, p. 206). They partly draw inspiration from city dwellers preferences towards wild urban vegetation found in former wastelands, and urban parks (ibid; see also Özgüner and Kendle, 2006; see Hoffmann et al, 2012). Asking open questions in order to determine the modal preferences towards wild urban vegetation to
mostly young male users of public urban spaces, Weber et al determined that wild roadside vegetation was, in general, highly regarded (Weber et al, 2014, p.
210), although landscaped vegetation was somewhat more popular (ibid).
Regardless, Weber et al conclude that attitudes towards wild urban vegetation were largely of affection (ibid) as is consistent with positive emotional valence.
However, Weber et al fail to provide clear evidence that helps to establish an understanding as to why, wild urban vegetation, even if untidy in appearance, is highly favoured by users of urban spaces.
Possible justifications are presented in Brook’s publication that discussed ‘the importance of nature, green spaces, and gardens in human well-being’ (Brook, 2010). Establishing her research context on contrasting experiences between present-day urban children and the ‘idyllic’ experiences of author and naturalist, Gerald Durrell, Brook seeks to empirically uncover the components found in nature can be associated with wellbeing (Brook, 2010, p. 295 – 296). Isis Brook identifies four elements that can be tested against each other in both urban and rural scenarios. These are, as extracted from the Corfu Trilogy: “time, wonder, action, and freedom” (Brook, 2010, p. 296). In brief, Brook stresses the
importance of ‘time’ spent amongst nature as it enables a person to not become caught up with his/herself. Brook discusses the wonder element noted in Gerald Durrell’s trilogy, where he emphasises its role in the appreciation of nature, an action highlighted by Frumkin in Kellert et al as beneficial in physical and
114
psychological healing processes (Kellert et al, 2010, p. 111). Within the context of action, Brook highlights Durrell’s attempts to replicate environments he encountered in his experiences of nature and claims that such engagement results in deeper appreciation of nature (Brook, 2010, p. 298). With ‘freedom’, Brook supports the notion “that a relationship with nature is not just a pleasant addition or preference one might choose to explore, but an essential component of human well-being” (ibid).
In various guises throughout the remainder of his paper Brook, like Kellert et al, acknowledges the benefits of human-nature relationships within the context of health, where he claims that we need not move into the rural areas to fully benefit from naturalistic relationships. After acknowledging that urban environments, that lack vegetation, access to water, and other natural scenery, Brook states that urban environments, inhabited by mostly the poor; people who are unable to move to richer areas, are indeed largely void of nature due to the prevalence of low maintenance ‘safe’ hard landscaping and strategies to improve policing of public urban spaces. For example, “the removal of trees or planting…because it obscures [CCTV] security monitoring” (Brook, 2010, p. 299). Citing previous studies, by Sullivan, Brook goes on to demonstrate that individuals living adjacent to green spaces engaged in more social activities, and displayed strong social cohesiveness (Brook, 2010, p. 300; see also Sullivan, 2005). When discussing the practice of Guerrilla Gardening, Brook acknowledges that not only does this informal intervention enhance the aesthetic of urban spaces, but its occurrence as a “resistance to the urban environments that we have been given and, as with the benefits of other nature experiences, involves a form of empowerment”
(Brook, 2010, p. 308) as a way of connecting to something else. According to Brook, we can become more than we are owing to the natural incorporation of the four elements (see ibid., p. 296) that, although discussed within the context of childhood experiences, can enhance experiences of adults (Ralston, 2012a, p.
58). Expanding on Brook’s work, Shane Ralston suggests that Guerrilla Gardens offer spaces for adults and children to deliberate, socialise (Ralston, 2012a, p.
64), and become an active participant in the living environment when engaging in the activity of Guerrilla Gardening (ibid, p. 65).
115
Described as the ‘illegal beautification’ of seemly neglected urban spaces (Adams and Hardman, 2013, p. 2), Adams and Hardman, explore the trend of guerrilla gardening as a tool to enhance existing environments in ways similar to the analysis of the impact of street art on dysfunctional urban environments.
Similar to the findings of Brook (2010) and Ralston (2012a), Adams and Huston conclude via ethnographic analysis that guerrilla gardening does enrich social interaction, but highlight the significant role played by ‘display’ (Adams and Hardman, 2013, p. 13). They draw the reader’s attention to the fact the efforts of the ‘guerrillas’ are appreciated by passers-by (Adams and Hardman, 2013, p.
14), however, very little research has since occurred that explains exactly how people respond to the presence of guerrilla gardening from the perspective of its enhancing or conversely destructive impact on the busyness of public urban spaces. Trends become a little clearer when discussed within the context of the recent street art practice urban knitting. It would seem that the closest we get to fully understanding the responses towards guerrilla gardening is the
acknowledgement of a genuine appreciation of, and even a scientific curiosity of an environment or nature itself (Ralston, 2012b, p.4). Fambro in any case states that Guerrilla Gardening is primary carried out with the intent to highlight the wasted potential of a derelict or vacant plot of land (Fambro, 2014, p. 13), with the further intention to slow things down (Schreiner et al, 2013, p. 64). The overall benefit of guerrilla gardening is its attractiveness, both aesthetically and functionally, where the activity has been known to bring people together
(Häkkinen et al, 2012, p. 12).
116