TRASTORNO POR ESTRÉS POSTRAUMATICO (TEPT)

This section considers the gaps in knowledge and understandings of allotment and AFN praxes on which further research has been called for. They are approached through the framework of activities, relations and governance and the concept of capital assets within (multi-scalar) social-ecological settings.

Activities of food and ‘non-food’ production on allotments have received little systematic attention, as is enabled by the capital assets framework. For example, not much research on either allotments or AFNs explores the levels and range of food produced, even though knowledge of these could help to evaluate claims for food security and health benefits (‘human capital’) (Ilbery and Kneafsey 2000, Pothukuchi 2004, Kirwan and Maye 2013, Tregear 2011). The other health benefits claimed for allotment cultivation have long been

documented e.g. from the ‘restorative natural setting’ (Burchardt 1997) or from exercise (DETR 1998), but this literature is not drawn on in discussions of AFNs. However, both AFNs and allotments are recognised as outlets for ‘non- food production’ activities with implications for other capital assets, including cultural (learning and hobbies), social (leisure and recreation) and natural (biodiversity, habitats). Urban gardening involves green spaces that can act as biodiverse wildlife refuges (Hope and Ellis 2009), and some (contested)

15

environmental and sustainability agendas (e.g. biodiversity) especially in urban contexts (e.g. Altieri 1999, Pretty et al. 2005a, Viljoen 2005, Born and Purcell 2006, Edward-Jones et al. 2008, Connelly et al. 2011). Further research from the multidimensional capital assets perspective (Bebbington 1999, Wilson 2007, Scoones 2009) into the food and non-food production activities on allotments can help to clarify these uncertainties around AFNs. It also helps to inform theoretical framings in literature of overcoming a ‘metabolic rift’ (McClintock 2010), and of culture-nature binaries (Castree 2005).

Relations within AFNs are suggested to represent new norms, as discussed for diverse or care economies (Gibson-Graham 2008, Dowler 2008). These

relational characteristics can be framed as social and economic capital assets, and include co-operation and reciprocity (e.g. Armstrong 2000, Sherriff 2009), and gifting or non-monetised exchanges, as documented for allotments (Ellen and Platten 2011). Yet urban allotments as sites of tension, with competitive and anti-social behaviour, have also been documented (Mougeot 2005). Most literature on AFNs discusses the positive side of cooperation and cohesion (e.g. Wakefield et al. 2007, Cox et al. 2008, Seyfang and Paavola 2008), with little focus on any potential tensions (though see Kirwan 2003 on farmers markets). The balance of these behaviours (cooperation and competition, building or depleting social capital), and the means for coping with behaviours outside social norms or ethics (Ostrom 2008) within allotment and AFN communities of practice and place (Harrington et al. 2008) remain to be detailed.

16

Relations within AFNs are suggested to ‘reconnect producers and consumers’ through short supply chains (Kneafsey et al. 2008), as well as to hold potential for urban and regional regeneration and development (Marsden 2010, USDA 2010, Choo 2011). These social and economic relations have yet to be compared to ‘back-to-the land’ migrations (Halfacree 2006, 2007), or the

continuum of allotments and smallholdings that historically existed (Crouch and Ward 1997). The potential of AFNs to create livelihoods and incomes, or ‘good food for everyone forever’ (Tudge 2011a), within wider settings of neoliberal relations of production and commodification (e.g. Kovel 2007), can be clarified through the capital assets framework, and accompanying concept of

convertibility between their different dimensions.

The governance of AFNs has also received little academic attention, although characteristics of participation and (sometimes exclusionary) citizenship have been explored for some UK and US community food initiatives (e.g. Seyfang 2006, Staeheli 2008, Sherriff 2009). Whilst some aspects of AFNs (local or ‘terroire’ and organic foods) have been suggested to cater for the privileged (D Goodman 2004), others (urban community gardens) are aligned with ethics of food and social justice (Wekerle 2004). Providing another contrast,

demographies of allotment tenants appear to defy stereotypes and attract participants from a wide socio-economic spectrum (e.g. Wiltshire and Geoghegan 2012). However, there has been little detailed attention to the

17

factors affecting how individuals access and participate in present-day allotments (though see DeSilvey 2003). Allotments were historically taken to subdue

political activity despite their roots in trade union movements (Burchardt 2002), and in the present-day, AFNs are suggested to lead to enhanced ‘citizenship’ (Seyfang 2008). These contrasts are explored in this thesis through perspectives of the interactions of agency and structure, involving access to multi-dimensional resources (George 1998, Barbosa et al. 2007), or ‘political capital’. It thus

considers issues of spatial justice and social movements (Escobar 1998, Chaplin 2010, Soja 2008), as well as the process of creating new narratives, or new conceptions of the world (Wainwright 2010). Through further research into the politics of participation and place within allotment and AFN praxes, greater clarity can be gained on the acting out of (food) power relations (e.g. Tansey and Worsley 1995, Lockie and Kitto 2000, Becher 2010), on the narratives involved (Halfacree 1993, Crouch and Ward 1997, M Goodman 2004, Yarwood 2005), and the conflation of ‘local’ with positive outcomes (D Goodman 2004).

As Tregear identifies (2011), there is an impasse in research on the contribution of AFNs to sustainability (Morgan and Sonnino 2010) but this thesis suggests that detailed exploration of the activities, relations and governance within AFNs and allotments through a political ecology framework clarifies their present-day impacts, as well as any potential to move from niche to mainstream given

certain contingent factors (e.g. fiscal incentives). Key ‘system’ characteristics for resilience and sustainability are proposed to be linking and learning, as well as

18

diversity and adaptation (Armitage et al. 2008, Folke et al. 2010). Contested claims that AFNs and allotments contribute to the sustainability of food supplies for urban populations (Morgan 2009), and their resilience to changing social and/or ecological conditions (Wilson 2012), can thus be investigated through concepts of multilevel polycentric social-ecological systems, or communities of interest, practice and place (Cash et al. 2006, Harrington et al. 2008, Ostrom 2010). Use of these concepts can help to clarify the (actual and potential) extent of allotments and AFNs as place-based food systems that can contribute to the resilience and sustainability of urban populations, and the requirements

(contingent factors) for their material, psychological and social functions.