Gases fluorados 3 Sumideros

To achieve these objectives, the investigation was divided into three major stages with different methods. It is important to be reminded that these three stages were not neatly divided; instead, there were iterative circles involved. Nevertheless, for the sake of communication, these three stages are as follows.

The first stage: looking across the fields

As Lorimer (2003) suggests, the act of walking offers a sensitive approach to the relations between experiences and our surroundings. As a foreign student, I was not constrained within certain norms and expectations. People did not feel threatened by me because I was willing to build up rapport or relationship at their pace. I was looking for something to add to my mind and my basket but at the same time I was also consciously sowing new seeds, whether seeds of wild plants or seeds of ideas. I had to decide how I should deal with my harvest, whether I should preserve it for the future or share it with others. I was grading their strengths and weaknesses and trying to understand how we could work together in a different context. An experienced forager once reminded me, “London is ripe with bushes and trees just waiting to be harvested”. I felt myself like a forager walking in the urban landscape of London from one community to another. In this regard, multi-sited ethnography is compatible with the purpose of this stage of the research, which works better in accommodating simultaneous processes in different connected places. As Marcus (2011:19) puts it: “The habit or impulse of multi-sited research is to see subjects as differently constituted, …but to see them in development – displaced, recombined, hybrid in the once popular idiom, alternatively imagined”. I was particularly drawn to his emphasis on “multiple agents in varying contexts or places, so

90 that ethnography must be strategically conceived to represent this sort of multiplicity,

and to specify both intended and unintended consequences in a network of complex connections between a system of places” (Marcus, 1998:52). The sites visited were initially guided by my previous engagement in community food sectors but gradually via a number of well-connected networks throughout the research.

This approach complemented my specific objective to develop a sense of how different sites function individually, and connect collectively. It also encouraged me to think strategically about why some sites should be treated as more significant than others. Furthermore, in recent years, multi-sited ethnography has tended not only to ‘follow’ a range of evolving networks and organisations, but to build upon our understanding of how and under what conditions strategic collaborations between researchers and informants can emerge from the fieldwork (Marcus, 2011:21-23). Marcus (ibid:28) states, “In some inquiries, fieldwork is not simply a schedule of interviews but is very often stage managing in collaboration with connected events of dialogue and independent inquiries around them”.

During this stage of investigation, I either took part in the event or was a volunteer in various places, from urban agriculture sites to community kitchens, to institutional meetings or an open day. I observed and participated in a range of everyday practices and activities. In that capacity, I kept a diary of what I saw and what I heard people say in passing when we were working together, be it planting, weeding or cooking. I kept notes of things that struck me as curious. For example, someone told me she never crossed the Thames, as she belonged to South London. I realised that the north/south divide was not only on the global scale but also took place in London.

The second stage: mapping and categorising community food initiatives

During the second stage of the investigation, an initial mapping exercise was undertaken to identify and describe community food initiatives in London. However, as Dowler and Caraher (2003) assert, ‘local food projects’ are hard to categorise, due to their wide scope and heterogonous character. They have a variety of institutional and organisational arrangements. More importantly, while food projects share similarities with other community activities, thanks to the nature of food, it is a more complicated issue for individuals, households and communities than promoting cycling or stop- smoking groups. Food is both private and public and an essential part of our everyday life. Indeed, in the complex world that food is part of, I encountered enormous difficulty in categorisation. There was overlapping between different categories and some

community food initiatives can be placed in more than one category. Nevertheless for the purpose of providing a useful reference point for further detailed conversation, I divided all sites visited into six categories based on my interpretation of the mapping exercise. This enabled me to classify and sort what is otherwise a relatively large and varied grouping of community food initiatives. The six categories included: (1) community self-help (charitable) food initiatives; (2) community food enterprises; (3) campaigning groups; (4) networks; (5) event-based initiatives; and (6) universities. The third stage: selecting case studies

While through ‘looking across the fields’ I was able to see a wide range of community food initiatives, as I mentioned earlier, the aim of this investigation was not to offer a comprehensive or representative survey of the current landscape as a whole. Instead,

it was set up to explore how we can grow a commons food regime more effectively by learning from community food initiatives in London. I aimed to gain a deeper understanding of their objectives, capacity, challenges, opportunities and strategies related to growing a commons food regime in London through selected case studies. The map 3.1(1) _{illustrates all the 53 sites visited with 20 case studies marked in different}

colours under each category of community food initiatives. Three selection criteria were adopted for the case studies as follows:

• Selected initiatives must exhibit some elements of commoning dynamics (i.e. care, institutions, participation, networks, collaboration, and learning) constructed with the integrative framework. The strength and uniqueness of those elements were also considered.

• At least one initiative from the six categories of community food initiatives presented above in each category.

• The diversity of their connections (e.g. food supply chain, food education, food policy involvement) with food and community action (e.g. community development, public health, poverty reduction, marginalised population, etc.).

From the mapping exercise, I then selected and focused on 20 case studies. Table 3.1 is the list of selected case studies with selection criteria.

(1) The map should be read with a number of considerations. First, it aimed to illustrate a general sense of the location of the community food initiatives I visited and investigated. Second, since this is not a web-based digital map, it can only record the specific time frame of the investigation period (2008- 2010). Third, the bigger size and diffused colour effect of the

decision also aimed to communicate the idea that these 20 case studies might have greater influence on growing a commons food regime in London, as well as being living entities (can be growing or declining illustrated through diffused colour effects). Finally, a small map on the top-right side to illustrate the distribution of those community food initiatives visited without

Community Food Initiative London United Kingdom Global 11 6 91/4 2 3 2 2 3 1 1 6 1 2 3 4 7 5 9 8 10 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 7 3 10 4 5 6 8 1 2 3 6 8 5 7 6 5 4 4 5 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 8 11 Bonnington Café FoodCycle

Greenwich Co-operative Development Agency Growing Communities

OrganicLea

Alara wholefoods Community Garden

People’s Kitchen People’s Supermarket Pimlico Farmers’ Market Portabello Food Market Urban Bees (multi-sited)

Community Food Enterprises

5

Calthorpe Project

Spa Hill allotment

Abundance Project

Blenheim Gardens Edible Estate Brockwell Park Community Greenhouse Food-up-front

Hackney Community Composting Support

Hare Krishna, King’s Cross

Manor Gardens Meanwhile Garden Kew Bridge Eco Village

Spitalfields City Farm The London Orchard Project

1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 8 11 12 13

Community Self-help Food Initiatives

Community Land Trust London

5 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 8

Queen’s Market (Friends of Queen’s Market)

UK Food Sovereignty Movement Capital Growth

Transition Town Brixton Women's Environmental Network

Reclaim the Fields / Grow Heathrow Friends of Earth

Gaia Foundation, London

Jamie Oliver’s School Meal Campaign Campaigning Groups 5 1 2 3 4 6 7 8

Good Food Partnership (Camden)

Slow Food London (Slow Food on Campus) London Food Link

South London Vegan Society Camden Shares

Green Drinks London

The Hub King’s Cross Royal society of Horticulture

Networks

A day without money

Feed the 5000!

Guerrilla Gardening (Camden) The Big Lunch, Peckham

Invisible Food The Dinner Exchange

5 1 2 3 4 6 Event-based Initiatives 1 2 3 4 Birkbeck City University LSE

SOAS Food Studies

University

Multi-sited community food initiative is not shown on this map.

The coloured titles and the bigger dots on the map represent the 20 in-depth cases studies of community food initiatives in London.

Map 3.1: Investigating the current landscape

of community food initiatives in London

Notes: UCL

All uncategorised community food initiatives engaged during the investigation

Category Name of initiatives Selection criteria

I�

Community self- help (charitable) food initiatives

The Calthorpe Project

Community food growing site, food and environmental education, multiculturalism, youth development, collective actions for protecting public green spaces in the inner city Hare Krishna,

King’s Cross

Faith group, concerning the homeless and people in need, vegetarianism, making use of food waste

Spa Hill Allotment

Inherited historical tradition of allotment culture and politics, collective actions for protecting urban green spaces, horticulture practices

II�

Community Food Enterprises

Bonnington Café

Squatter origin, workers’ co-op, food hub, vegetarianism, self- organisation for improving neighbourhood and place-making for a sense of community

FoodCycle

Food waste, food education, concerning marginalised population, capacity building/volunteering/leadership programme

Greenwich Cooperative Development Agency

Advocacy for co-operative development, food co-ops, educational and training programme, public policy engagement in co-operatives and alternative economies

Growing Communities

CSA (Community Supported Agriculture), organic farmers’ market, box scheme, food zones, apprenticeship programme, patch farm cultivation; this model has been scaled up and scaled out to other communities

Organiclea

Workers’ cooperative, peri-urban food production, historical heritage, participatory oriented place-making; permaculture principles; reclaiming the fields; progressive community development (e�g� reskilling, tackling food deserts issues, especially for low income households, etc�); partnership with Hornbean Café (serving as a food hub)

III� Campaigning Groups

Capital Growth Urban scale for community food growing, policy involvement, capacity building programme, tied with London Olympics

Friends of Queen’s Market

Self-organised campaigning initiative for protecting traditional food markets against local council’s planning proposal

Transition Town Brixton

First Transition Initiative in London, a grassroots community development to tackle pressing issues such as climate change and peak oil through a holistic approach linking food with other urban systems (e�g� the local currency – Brixton Pound, alternative energy systems)

UK Food Sovereignty Movement

An informal alliance of producers and consumers, NGOs and campaigning groups, dealing with the challenges to promote and realise a radical alternative for global food systems Women’s

Environmental Network

Gender-focused campaigning networks, with a vision to make the connections between women’s health and well-being and environmental issues

IV. Networks

London Food Link A network of over 250 London-based organisations and _{individuals focused on sustainable food in London} Good Food

Partnership

A partnership between local government and community groups; cross sector network and advisory body for Camden’s food system, including strategies and implementations

Slow Food London A network to bring people together to create change through Slow Food initiatives for food culture, biodiversity and educational programme

95

V� Event-based Initiatives

Feeding the 5000! A coalition of FareShare, FoodCycle, Love Food Hate Waste and Friends of the Earth to raise awareness of food waste issues; high profile event

Guerrilla Gardening

Neighbourhood and community cohesion and inclusion, beautification, food cultivation and urban environmental management; reclaiming public spaces

The Big Lunch, Peckham

A belief that the world can be a better place through people working together, with nature, optimism and common sense VI.

University SOAS Food Studies

An interdisciplinary centre; a hub for knowledge exchange and information sharing in the field of food studies

Table 3�1 List of selected case studies with selection criteria