The Role of Community Gardens in the Creation of Social Capital and Community Development in West Cork

1
The Role of Community Gardens in the Creation and
Promotion of Social Capital and Community Development.
A Case Study in Dunmanway/West Cork.
BSc(Hons)International Development & Food Policy Dissertation by Dirk Fleischheuer
Student Number: 111719999
Academic Supervisor: Dr Stephen Onakuse
18/03/2015

2
Abstract
The creation of a Community Garden in the West Cork town of Dunmanway in 2013 has led
to an improvement in the economic, physical and socio-economic well-being of many
members of the greater Dunmanway Community. This applies to those community
members who have volunteered in the garden, as well as to other members who have
benefited from the spill-over effects the garden had on the community. The effects created
are both tangible and intangible with the creation of jobs through an employment scheme
arguably the most tangible effect. Other effects are connected to the improved well-being
of community members through better diets, improved food security and food choice.
Improved socio-economic living standards through the creation of social capital as a by-
product of the garden as a meeting and working place were also positive effects. The role of
the community garden as a vehicle for community development in an inclusive manner is
exemplified in the Dunmanway project. It has formed the basis of other community
activities through the provision of produce as well as man-power. The garden has also
served as an intercultural meeting point for a culturally complex community. This study was
conducted during the summer of 2014 and in January and February of 2015 through a
participatory research project in the Dunmanway Community Garden. The study reports on
the development process of the garden and the characteristics since its establishment, but
also contextualises these findings by comparing them to experiences made elsewhere. The
study was undertaken in order to show how the establishment of a community garden
project has wide-ranging benefits for communities in general and how it was beneficial for
the area of Dunmanway in particular. It also established the importance of community
gardens as ideal places for the creation of social capital and the promotion of community
development.

3
Table of Contents
Chapter Side
1. Introduction
1.1. Community Garden Projects
5
5
1.2. Definitions 6
1.3. Aims and Objectives of the Study 7
1.4. Expected Outcomes of the Study 8
1.4. Dunmanway Area Characteristics
2. The Role of Community Gardens: a Literature Review
8
9
2.1. Overview 9
2.2. Community Gardens. Characteristics and Activities 10
2.3. Difficulties and Problems regarding Community Gardens
2.4. The typical Community Gardener
2.5. Community Development and its Importance
2.6. Social Capital
2.7. Social Development
3. Methodology
3.1. March 2014- August 2015. Field Research
3.2. January 2015-February 2015. Interviews
3.3. The Sample
3.4. November 2014-March 2015. Secondary Research
3.5. Limitations of this Study
4. Findings and Analysis
4.1. The Situation before the Garden
4.2. The Aims of the Garden
4.3. The Creation of the Garden and the Utilisation of local Networks
4.4 The Role of the DunmanwayFamilyResource Centre asaFacilitatorof the Garden
4.5. Dunmanway Community Garden Characteristics
4.6. The Community and How it benefitted from the Garden
4.7. Difficulties and Problems during the Creation and Facilitation of the Garden
4.8. The Future of the Garden
4.9. Analysis
5. Conclusion
Bibliography (including key informants via interviews)
Appendix
13
14
15
16
18
19
19
20
20
21
22
23
23
24
24
26
27
28
30
31
31
37
40
44

4
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank everyone who made this paper possible: My lecturers over the past
four years who not only taught me about their specific areas of expertise, but who also
helped me to learn more about myself. Especially Dr Edward Lahiff and Mr Mike Fitzgibbon
always had an open ear for any kind of problems and questions. A great thank you to all the
people of the Dunmanway Community Garden project: Ita, Tracy, Charlie, Maria, Selvi,
Angie and all the others who patiently answered my questions. Also I would like to say thank
you to all my friends I made in college for the craíc and the coffees. Finally, the biggest
thank you goes out to my wife Mary who supported me throughout those four years and
without whom I would never have made it.

5
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1. Community Garden Projects
Community Gardens are an important source of tangible and intangible benefits to the local
Community (Smith & Parpia, 2014) and are made-up by a piece of land gardened,
maintained and controlled by a group of mainly volunteer people who usually live in the
area and not by local governments (Dictionary.com, 2014; Ecolife, 2011). Community
gardens provide nutritious food, preserve green space and are an important vehicle for
community and social development through the stimulation of social interaction. They can
also be important in the educational process of the community, especially of children. They
do so by improving knowledge regarding nutrition and food origins and foster
neighbourhood development by bridging cultural and generational gaps. Further to that
they can reduce the food budgets of participants and can generate exercise and recreation
opportunities (Smith & Parpia, 2014). Overall can community gardens therefore contribute a
healthy life style through the promotion of good nutrition, physical activity and the
enhancement of social cohesion (Blaine et al, 2010) While individual gardening projects may
vary in what they offer, the issues of education, health, food security and community
development seem to be of particular importance when it comes to the study of the social
dimensions of community gardens (Ferris et al, 2001).
The importance of community gardens is arguably widely acknowledged however, it should
also be acknowledged that they face a number of challenges. The long-term survival of such
projects often seems to be jeopardised by expiring land-leases, financial difficulties and
other uncertainties (Harris, 2015). Other challenges include theft and vandalism (Hirsch,
2013) and environmental threats (Kim et al, 2014).

6
1.2. Definitions
In this paper the terms “social development”, “social capital” and “community
development” will be repeatedly referred to. The working definition of “social capital”
“social development” and “community development” for the purpose of this paper are as
follows:
Social capital: The network of social connections that exist between people and their
shared views and norms of behaviour, which enable and encourage mutually
advantageous social cooperation. (TheFreeDictionary, 2014)
Francis argues that the creation of social capital is usually the by-product of activities made
in order to reach economic or other targets and not created through conscious activities.
Nevertheless, social capital can be destroyed through abuse or disuse. (Francis, 2002) In this
study I will explore how the participating and non-participating members of the
Dunmanway community in West Cork have benefited from the creation of a community
garden in their town and how the garden created social capital among the project’s
participants.
Social development: … is about putting people at the centre of development. This
means a commitment that development processes need to benefit people
particularly, but not only, the poor, also recognizing that people, and the way they
interact in groups and society, and the norms that facilitates such interaction, shape
development processes. (ISS, 2004)
Social development is less concerned with economic targets and can instead be defined as
an interactive process of socio-economic changes which focuses on improvements in
nutrition, education, health and standards of living. (Pavlov, 2014; Midgley, 2013) Likewise
does research on the influences of social networks suggests that the provision of social
support through such networks influences the well-being of individuals. (Zhu et al, 2013)
Community Development: Community development is a process where community
members come together to take collective action and generate solutions to common
problems. Community wellbeing (economic, social, environmental and cultural)
often evolves from this type of collective action being taken at a grassroots level.

7
Community development ranges from small initiatives within a small group to large
initiatives that involve the broader community. (PeerNetBC, n.d.)
Based on the above definitions it seems obvious that the concepts and goals of social
capital, social development and community development are similar. All three focus on
people and their well-being. They arguably vary somewhat in their approaches to this
common goal. While social capital is often created through activities that are directed at
other targets, social and community development targets are usually much more clearly
defined in approach, outcome and beneficiaries. It could therefore be argued that social
and/or community development projects also create social capital as a by-product, while
the creation of social capital on the other hand does not automatically lead to social and/or
community development.
1.3. Aims and Objectives of this Study
The overall objective of this study is to show how the establishment of a community garden
project has wide-ranging benefits for communities in general and how it is beneficial for the
greater Dunmanway community in particular. By doing so, I hope to promote the creation of
similar new projects and the long-term continuation of already existing projects.
In greater detail, the aims and objectives of this paper are to examine in which way and to
what extent the community garden in the West Cork town of Dunmanway has facilitated
the creation and maintenance of social capital and community development in the local
area, while at the same time I will explore how the concepts of community development
and social networking were utilised by the organisers and participants of the Dunmanway
project. I will examine whether participating members of the community have made
positive experiences through the activities provided by the management group of the
garden and/or through actions that were initiated by the participants themselves. Further I
will inspect if the active participation in the project has led to a perceived improvement in
“embeddedness” of the participants in the community and whether the project is of an
inclusive or exclusive nature. Lastly I will explore whether the community of Dunmanway
has experienced tangible or intangible benefits through the creation and the running of the
garden project and in which way such potential benefits had been envisioned by the project
management group as part of a community development processes.

8
1.4. Expected Outcomes of the Study
Based on secondary research and my work in the Dunmanway community garden in the
spring and summer of 2014 I expect this study to show that the creation and establishment
of the community garden has made a positive impact on the community and its citizens.
This should manifest itself in tangible benefits such as the creation of employment
opportunities, improved food security and the reduction of food budgets especially for
socially disadvantaged families. I also expect to see a rise in intangible benefits such as the
perceived well-being of participating community members and increased and stronger ties
across the social network of the project participants.
1.5. Dunmanway Area Characteristics
The town of Dunmanway represents the geographical centre of the West Cork region and
the planning of the town dates back to the 17th century. There are a number of established
translations to its Irish name, the most common being “the castle of the yellow river”, “the
castle on the little plain”, “the fort of the gables” and “the fort of the yellow man”
(Dunmanway.ie, n.d.). The total population of Dunmanway Town in 2011 was 1585 people.
The percentage of non-Irish residents was 8.2% compared to a national average of 12%. The
unemployment rate was 19.4% compared to the national rate of 19% (CSO, 2011). The
Environs of Dunmanway town are comprised by 22 electoral divisions and the total
population of Dunmanway and its hinterland was 13,470 in 2011. A three year strategic plan
on community development for the region was published by the Dunmanway Family
Resource Centre (DFRC) in 2013. In it the DFRC identified some key issues impacting on the
people living in the greater Dunmanway area. Among those are: Lack of employment,
education and meaningful activities as well as lack of emotional support for adults and
young people. Furthermore, lack of accessible public transport contributes to the exclusion
and isolation of the most disadvantaged people in the community. Another characterising
aspect of Dunmanway is its large alternative lifestyle community, which is mainly located in
the Cool Mountain area. Particularly the younger people of this community suffer from a
lack of integration (DFRC, 2013).

9
Chapter 2
The Role of Community Gardens: A Literature Review:
2.1. Overview
The majority of literature on community gardens and their implications to the local
community stems from sources in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia. This is
why I have focussed my own research on the town of Dunmanway in order to establish
whether the experiences and impacts described in the literature from oversees can also be
observed in Ireland and if so in which way they influenced the Dunmanway community.
Community gardens are generally viewed as beneficial to the community and to the
gardeners (Ferris et al, 2001; Smith, 2014). The main body of literature in relation to the
subject seems to focus on sustainability and how gardening participants can (re)engage and
(re)connect with the food system and the landscape in sustainable ways (Turner, 2011). In
addition to that, the social aspects of community gardens seem to be mainly explored in the
context of the “double benefit” they provide. Namely the growing and subsequent
consumption of healthy organic food while at the same time removing the dependence on
unhealthy alternatives (McIlvaine-Newsad & Porter, 2013). Potential negative aspects focus
on risks associated with work in the gardens, such as the potential risks to gardeners
through contaminated soils (Kim et al, 2014), on accessibility of gardens in urban
neighbourhoods (Wang et al, 2014) and on problems such as theft and cultural conflicts
among participants (Hirsch, 2013).
The concept of social capital in general has been widely explored, most notably by Putman
whom I use as the main point of reference during the section on social capital in this
literature review. Other fields of academic literature in relation to this paper are mainly
concerned with social networks and provide some insight into the role of social networks in
relation to perceived well-being (Zhu et al, 2013). Due to the relatively small number of
stakeholders in the Dunmanway project I have attempted to take a more holistic approach
in my study and talk about all those fields of study in relation to the Dunmanway project.

10
2.2. Community Gardens: Characteristics and Activities
Community gardens can be found in many countries and in rural as well as urban areas. A
clear-cut definition of what is a community garden is arguably difficult and not necessarily
beneficial to the study of such gardens as the individual characters of these gardens can be
quite diverse and are generally shaped by the local responses to local needs (Ferris et al,
2001). There is also a difference between collective gardens where participants work jointly
in a larger area towards common goals and allotment gardens where gardeners rent a
smaller parcel within a larger lot (Alaimo et al, 2000). What all community gardens have in
common and what is their distinguishing feature when compared to private gardens is that
they are open to the public, owned by the public and controlled by the public in a
democratic manner (Ferris et al. 2001).
In a study carried out by Ferries et al in 1997 the researchers found that most of the
following main activities were present in the majority of gardens visited and that community
gardens typically function as:
Leisure/recreational gardens for people without gardens (Ferris et al, 2001). A prime
example of these types of gardens can be found on the outskirts of many Austrian, Swiss
and German cities, the so called “Schrebergärten”. These small plots of land were initially
established in Leipzig in the mid-19th century to teach children the basics of gardening. In
present days they form a retreat for people without their own garden and by leasing a plot
in the garden it provides them with a recreational space for their weekends (Der Spiegel,
2006). Further do these gardens take on an important role in the creation of social
networks, especially for older people (Gebhard, 2013).
School/educational gardens which seek to combine gardening activities, such as soil
preparation, planting, harvesting and composting, with the school curriculum. (Ferris et al,
2001). Originating in schoolyards across the world, schools used these gardens as a
classroom extension to teach children about the origins of their food and to pass on
agricultural knowledge and gardening skills. In many cases the produce of these gardens
may also provide the basis of a nutritional school lunch (Green Heart Education, 2007). The
concept of such agricultural and gardening education can have far reaching socio-ecological
effects, as the various elements of an ecosystem are interdependent. Young students

11
learning about nutritional values of certain foods might well initiate changes in the eating
habits of their families while at the same time better nutrition might positively affect
academic performance (Ozzer, 2007).
Entrepreneurial gardens aim to alleviate (food)poverty and social exclusion (Ferris et al,
2001). Usually these goals are achieved through the distribution and donations of garden
produce to local charities and/or low-income families. By doing so, the donating and
distributing community members not only improve food security but also actively create
positive change within their community (Hoffman & Doody, 2014).
Crime diversion gardens are targeted (among others) at people who try to reintegrate into
society and overcome the stigma of prison and criminal records. This type of community
garden is often found in the U.S. They aim to involve the local community, especially local
young people in the production of local organic vegetables which are then sold to local
residents. In collaboration with official office holders, such as Mayors etc, these gardens can
offer wages and those keeping young people away from crime and drugs (Ferris et al, 2001).
Healing and therapy gardens for those suffering from mental illness and/or seeking
rehabilitation and full social inclusion (Ferris et al, 2001). The healing and therapeutic effects
of a garden are mainly attributed to it being a space where people can experience a
restorative influence through the gardens serene, safe and green atmosphere, but also
through the horticultural activities and the chance to experience nature more closely, while
for other people it can also be a combination of both (Siegsdotter & Grahn, n.d.). Various
empirical studies have identified and proven the recuperative potential and therapeutic
value that community gardens can give to communities recovering from trauma and
disaster such as the Columbine High School shooting (Hofmann & Doody, 2014).
Neighbourhood pocket parks are usually located in residential areas, often with
playgrounds and flower beds established by and for the local residents (Ferris et al, 2001).
Studies in the U.S. have shown that such park areas in residential neighbourhoods are
beneficial to the health of local residents as they encourage exercise, and can improve
water and air quality. At the same time can such recreational spaces have economic impacts
on the neighbourhood they are located in, as they can increase the value of nearby property
(American Trails, 2010).

12
Ecological restoration gardens are gardens in which waterways that have been enclosed in
concrete culverts are being restored to their natural state.
Demonstration gardens are gardens which cover similar educational topics as the school
gardens, but are targeted towards the adult population (Ferris et al, 2001).
Ferries based the categorisation of community gardens according to their main
characteristics on research conducted within the greater San Francisco area, but as Ferries
points out and as I have exemplified, these characteristics can also be found in other areas
worldwide. Many of these characteristics of community gardens can indeed be found in the
Dunmanway Community garden as I will establish later in this paper.
Regardless of the characteristics that may be emphasised in a community garden, the over-
arching principle is the promotion of economic, ecological, physical and socio-cultural
sustainability. Physical and ecological sustainability is promoted through the growing of
local, safe, fresh and pre-dominantly organic food. Social and cultural sustainability is
fostered in the community space as it provides the basis for cultural interactions. Economic
sustainability is promoted through the provision of a space that can function as
demonstration and teaching site for horticultural techniques and innovative technologies
(Turner, 2011).
The sites on which community gardens are established are usually publicly owned by city or
county councils. The proprietors of the gardens sign a lease which clarifies the terms of use.
The gardens can be created through grassroots initiatives or through facilitated initiatives.
Socio, cultural and ecological diversity are of importance in community gardens as they
provide a space where people from different cultures and backgrounds can meet
(Madlener, 2009).
The benefits of such projects do not only apply to the community gardeners but can also
affect non-community gardeners for example through the distribution of food to such
gardeners, to food banks or to other members of the community. The provision of such
services may in return be very meaningful to donating gardeners thereby not only
promoting the community’s development but also alleviating food insecurity and social
exclusion (McIlvaine-Newsad, 2013). Not only can such actions help to fight food insecurity

13
they also promote food choice as the recipients of the, mostly organic, produce benefit from
a more nutritious and healthier diet (Hoffman & Doody, 2014). Community gardens are
therefore providing an ideal vehicle for the promotion of sustainable living and the
(re)connection of the individual and the community to the socio-cultural importance of food
(Turner, 2011). At the same time the community garden acts as a catalyst which empowers
the members of the community to actively participate in the improvement and
development of their community while improving their mental well-being. This process can
also serve as a broad definition of community development in general (Hoffman & Doody,
2014).
Many community gardens are also viewed as a political space by its volunteers. They regard
their involvement as a political statement by changing their community themselves rather
than relying on help from official political actors. Such changes can be of a physical nature,
through the creation of green spaces, but also of a more socio-economic nature with the
garden taking on a role of a multi-cultural meeting place where active inclusion into society
is taking place (Madlener, 2009; Bütikofer, 2012).
2.3. Difficulties and Problems regarding Community Gardens
One of the most commonly encountered problems of community gardens seems to be the
problem of theft, both from the outsiders and fellow gardeners. This problem however
seems to be more prevalent in gardens where the participants work on individual plots,
while gardens with community areas do not experience a lot of food theft. A communal area
within a garden that otherwise consists of individual plots might therefore be an
appropriate tool to discourage individuals from stealing their fellow gardeners produce
(Hirsch, 2013). Wang et al focus on the existence of community gardens in a spatial context
by considering the accessibility of such gardens for people who lack access to nutritious and
affordable food. Based on a study carried out in Edmonton, Canada Wang concluded that
community gardens often cluster with supermarkets and that people who cannot easily
reach a supermarket also experience difficulties in getting to and from community gardens
(Wang et al, 2014). Other frequently encountered problems are inter-cultural clashes
between gardeners which are often rooted in minor differences of beliefs, such as when the
best time for watering plants is (Hirsch, 2013). While the health benefits of gardening are

14
well documented and related literature arguably makes up the bulk of academic writing on
the subject of community gardening there can also be a health risk associated with
gardening. This is most pronounced in spaces whose histories might not always be fully
known to the gardener. Especially in urban settings the gardener might be exposed to soil
contaminations such as chemicals, heavy metals and asbestos. Urban community gardens
might also be closer located to sources of pollution such as roads and/or industrial areas.
Such gardeners are potentially at risk to unintentionally inhale and/or ingest contaminated
soil with children being at a higher potential risk as they tend to put their fingers and hands
into their mouths more frequently (Kim et al, 2014).
2.4. The typical community gardener
In 2009 Blaine, Parwinder, Ashley and Snider carried out a study in the U.S. city of Cleveland
Ohio attempting to profile the typical community gardener. They established that
participants in community gardens come, generally speaking, from all age groups and
income classes. However the participation age peaks in the 50 – 59 year age group. One
reason for this could be the level of physical activity associated with gardening. For people
of a younger age this level of activity might not be enough and they might seek other, more
challenging activities. On the other hand, the physical demands in relation to gardening
could be too high for people from older age groups. In relation to income levels the study
showed that there was a diminishing participation the higher people’s income was. The
researchers suggested two possible explanations for this: people of a higher income class
moved away from the urban area where the study was carried out, and/or people who earn
more money have more professional and private commitments and less time for community
gardening. Further to that the study established that participation by gender was relatively
equal with 58% female and 42% male participants. Most community gardeners were found
to walk to their gardens with 82% living less than 15 minutes away. (Blaine et al, 2010)

15
2.5. Community Development and its Importance
Community development is one of the most important determinants of health and well-
being. Evidence shows that physical improvements to a neighbourhood, such as improved
social housing facilities and/or efficiently designed parks, must be accompanied by
improvements to the social structure of the community. If the people of the community
have no sufficient input in the creation and management of such improvements the overall
beneficial results of such projects will be less than optimal (Syme & Ritterman 2009). This
arguably applies to the physical as well as to the social capital of a community. The act of
volunteering for a project like a community garden can benefit individuals mentally, socially
and psychologically because it strengthens the neighbourly relations. Volunteering fosters
respect for the common good, creating empathy, trust and tolerance for others and leads to
social integration among the volunteers. The personal validation of the individual as a useful
member of the community might also be established through the volunteering process as
he/she sees him/herself as someone who can make a difference (Ohmer et al, 2009). By
empowering the residents of a community in such a manner they are given the tools to
identify the potential for, and the stimulation and maintenance of improvements. In the
context of community gardens one area of improvement that needs to- and can be
addressed by the gardens is the need for a healthier and more nutritious diet for many
people. Furthermore, gardening activities can increase the psychological and physical well-
being of, among others, elderly community members. This is due to an increased contact
with plants, which has been identified as therapeutic, and through improved fitness levels
through the physical activities associated with gardening. Other areas of community
development might address social needs such as transport to social activities and/or
doctor’s appointments and general care and emotional support (Hofmann & Doody, 2014).

16
2.6. Social Capital
One of the leading researchers on the subject of social capital is arguably Robert D. Putnam,
who argues that the first known use of the concept was introduced by E.J. Hanafin in 1916.
Hanafin’s concept of social capital, as well as the concepts of those who followed him in this
particular field of research, is the idea that social ties make the lives of people more
productive. Hanafin argued that the individual is socially helpless if left to himself/herself
and that therefore social intercourse, sympathy and fellowship are the tangible substances
that make up social units. If an individual comes into contact with other members of the
community social capital accumulates and with it the potential of improvements for the
individual and the entire community, increases. The individual will experience fellowship,
help and sympathy through the community, while the community as a whole will profit from
the cooperation among the individuals. Putnam argues further that the principle of
reciprocity is the cornerstone of social capital. People extend a favour to others without
expecting it to be returned immediately. They might even do so without knowing the
individual, but they are reasonably convinced that at some point in the future this person,
or someone else they might not know, will return the favour. A society buying into the
concept of reciprocity and trust works more efficiently than one whose members are
isolated and distrustful, because trust and honesty overcome the resistances of social life
(Putnam, 2000).
The benefits of social capital have been widely recognised, there is however some
discussion as to how to generate social capital most effectively. Alaimo et al describes two
approaches to the creation of social capital: the individual approach or the community
approach. With the individual approach, social capital is created through the development
and increase of social networks for the individual through the individual. This means that
such programmes are designed to attract as many people from the community as possible
thereby promoting trust, norms and networking. In other words: the community or the
neighbourhood are also creators of social ties. With the community approach, on the other
side, activities and events are created by (outside)facilitators in which fewer people might
be targeted and participate, but whose benefits might spill over to non-participants (Alaimo
et al, 2010).

17
In this context Bütikofer presents an interesting argument. She argues that the basis for
volunteerism and the creation of social capital is the individual’s interest in the quality of
public life in his/her neighbourhood (Bütikofer, 2012). Putnam argues that reciprocity and
trust are the cornerstones of social capital. This argument is supported by Bütikofer who
further argues that persons with a strong belief in trust believe that the cooperation with
others will lead to mutual benefits. At the same time they believe that the most important
factor in the creation of social capital is the actual voluntary involvement in a project aimed
at the improvement of public quality of life. These three concepts of interest in the quality
of public life, trust and actual involvement are the key ingredients for the creation of social
capital and without them community gardens cannot be established. This means that the
initiators and volunteers involved in a community garden project must already have an
interest in mutually advantageous cooperation as the creation of such a project demands
significant efforts by the individuals involved. At the same time, it is of importance that the
initiators are able to motivate others to join. A certain amount of social capital is therefore
necessary in order to establish a project like a community garden (Bütikofer, 2012).
While community gardens are places that can promote physical well-being through good
nutrition and physical activity, they also generate social benefits. During a study of
community gardens in New York the gardeners stated that they saw their gardens more as
social meeting places rather than agricultural production sites (Alaimo et al, 2010). This
supports Francis’ argument that the creation of social capital is usually the by-product of
activities undertaken to achieve other goals (Francis, 2002). These goals are defined by
common interests which are often associated with free time activities such as clubs, theatre
groups and sports teams. They can also be found in bars, at parties or, as explored in this
paper, community gardens. It is therefore important to view the social capital of a
community in the social context of this community i.e. the infrastructure which facilitates
the individual’s and collective actions (Glover, 2004). Community gardens can build social
capital through the creation of a social network which is needed to successfully manage the
garden. In many community gardens culturally diverse communities come together. They
learn gardening skills from each other and produce local, usually organic food with low
ecological costs. They exchange information about each other, their cultures and the
vegetables grown in these cultures. Eventually food and recipes may be shared and a social

18
network that stretches across cultural divisions can flourish. The community therefore
benefits in a multidimensional manner, namely through improved human, ecological,
economic and social capital (Hancock, 1999).
However, it is also important to understand that social capital can have negative side-
effects. These side-effects mainly affect those people who are outside of a social network
and might even be targeted by a network that, despite their buying into the concept of
reciprocity, has an anti-social agenda. Organisations such as the Ku Klux Klan or more
contemporary terrorist organisations spring to mind. If social capital is exploited it can be
used to support malevolent intentions. One must also distinguish between inclusive and
exclusive dimensions of social capital. Exclusive social networks tend to look towards the
inside of their network only, thereby reinforcing homogenous groups and identities.
Inclusive social networks look towards the outside and try to bridge social divides and
differences (Putnam, 2000).
2.7. Social Development
Poverty is not only the lack of sufficient financial means. It is also about isolation, exclusion
and vulnerability of affected people. Social development therefore focuses on the people in
its developmental processes through the promotion of inclusion and security (World Bank,
2014). While the concept of social development has certainly been acknowledged as an
important aspect of developmental processes there seems to be little literature that
explores it in the context of community gardening. Existing literature seems to focus mainly
on the role community gardens can take on in the empowerment of women in developing
countries. For the purpose of this study such literature is arguably less relevant. It also
appears that the concepts of social development and social capital overlap to a certain
extent as they both promote inclusion and trust and are very much people orientated. In
this study, I wish to exemplify how the community garden in Dunmanway has helped
individuals in the process of inclusion into the community.

19
Chapter 3
Methodology
The technique used to carry out this study was a combination of qualitative primary and
qualitative secondary research. This involved participatory field research and the study of
relevant existing literature of the fields related to the aims of this study.
3.1. March 2014 – August 2014 Field Research
For the purpose of this study I decided to carry out qualitative research in the field to obtain
primary data and to gather secondary qualitative data through the review of literature
resources. The research process in the field mainly took place in the spring and summer of
2014 and in January and February of 2015. From March 2014 until August 2014 I carried out
my student placement with the Cork Environmental Forum (CEF). This placement is an
essential part of my degree. The CEF is an organisation that fosters communication and
collaboration between stakeholders in environmental development processes. It brought
me in contact with the Dunmanway Community Garden project as it carried out an advisory
role in the steering group of the garden. In the garden I carried out hands on work such as
fertilizing, seeding, and tending to vegetable beds. I also represented my placement host in
the meetings of the garden’s steering group which gave me an inside view of the
management processes. During the actual work in the garden I would often have informal
talks with other volunteers. I did not actively seek such conversations with the intention of
using their contents for this paper but they provided me with interesting information that
developed my interest in the topic. Therefore, I would best describe my research method
with the concept of “field research” which involves interaction (participation, observation
and communication) as a standard process. During this research method the researcher
develops a relationship with his object of study which may vary in its intensity, stretching
from informal chats with some participants of the project on to formal interviews with
others. The results of this research method therefore reflect the way in which the study was
carried out (Fleck, 2013).

20
3.2. January 2015 – February 2015 Interviews
During January and February 2015 I carried out a number of interviews with various
stakeholders in the project. These stakeholders included: active and passive participants in
the projects, such as gardening volunteers, neighbours, community workers and other
professionals, such as gardeners who were involved in the project. The interviews took
place on a weekly basis in the garden. In these interviews I focussed on the social diversity
in the makeup of the garden with the aim of establishing as to whether it is representative
of the Dunmanway area. I also examined if working in the garden has brought diverse
people closer together. Further, I focussed on the motivations and expectations for
community gardening of the individual participants and explored whether the participants
motivations and expectations where successfully met. In addition to that I researched
whether food insecurity was a reason that led to the establishment of the garden and /or to
the involvement of individual participants. I also examined if the produce from the garden
has been used to alleviate food insecurity. Further I asked questions related to the
experiences made by the interviewee in relation to the volunteering process. Other, more
general questions were related to demographic details of the interviewee such as
nationality and age. Background information about the social composition of the community
was obtained through the Dunmanway Family Resource Centre (DFRC) which is the founding
and managerial organisation of the project. Some of the interview questions were only put
to the management staff of the garden. These questions revolved around management and
planning issues. A complete list of questions can be found in the appendix.
3.3. The sample
As previously explained I recruited the interview sample from the regular stakeholders
involved in the day to day running of the project. In total I interviewed nine individuals, six
of which are volunteers. Two persons are working in the DFRC and are managing the project
and one individual is the resident gardener who tends to the garden approximately four
hours a week depending on the seasons and the workload. Of the six volunteers two live in
close proximity to the garden, so they not only reflected on their experiences as volunteers
but also on those experiences they made as neighbours. At the same time the DFRC workers
also engage in gardening activities, so that their reflections on the project are likewise two-

21
dimensional. The sample of interviewees is certainly quite small, but the interviewed
individuals represent the nucleus of the Dunmanway community garden project. On every
occasion I visited the garden these were the people I encountered, worked with and talked
to. They were therefore in an ideal position to answer my questions in depth and to reflect
on the development of the project in the best possible manner. Other volunteers did show
up on occasions, but their input into the project was accordingly smaller. Even though I had
informal chats with these volunteers their input into this study is mainly of a background
nature. I mention this in order to avoid misunderstandings in relation to the total numbers
of volunteers. This study is therefore not an attempt to gather empirical data on the role of
community gardens in the creation of social capital and community development, but rather
an attempt to exemplify the theories and concepts of community development and social
capital creation in the case of the Dunmanway gardening project.
3.4. November 2014- March 2015 Secondary research
In order to give a broader overview of the topic and to gain a wider understanding in the
area of community development and social capital creation through community gardens I
undertook extensive secondary research. This research was done in the fields of
Development Studies, Environment Studies, Social Policies and Networks as well as
Ecological Anthropology. In more detail this means that I searched for peer reviewed articles
on community gardens, but also for community garden web sites in order to contextualise
what these gardens encompass. I also searched for peer reviewed articles on community
development, social capital and social development to provide the reader with a clear
understanding of these concepts and how they are related to the activities in community
gardens and by extension to this study. The findings of this research are of importance in
order to contextualise my research findings in Dunmanway. The secondary research also
provided insight as to whether my findings are similar to those made in other studies
relating to other projects of similar nature but in different regions.

22
3.5. Limitations of the study
The most obvious limitation of this study is the small sample. Apart from the small sample
they are other factors that could be considered as limitations to this study. As described
earlier I carried out primary research as a volunteer in the Dunmanway community garden.
By doing so I almost became a member of the community myself. While this methodology
gives an excellent and specific insight into the developments of the community garden
project in Dunmanway it may not be representative for other areas and communities in
Ireland. Such a participatory approach also bears the danger of losing objectiveness. I am of
the opinion that I have maintained my objectiveness regarding the developments in
Dunmanway. However it must be said that due to the relatively close relationship I
established with some of the regular volunteers I felt uncomfortable asking question in
relation to their socio-economic nature such as income. The relatively small number of
participating interviewees limits the representativeness of the study somewhat. It does in
my opinion however give a more detailed insight into the motivations and reflections of the
individual participant.

23
Chapter 4
Findings and Analysis
Dunmanway Community Garden
4.1. The Situation before the Garden
Before the establishment of the garden the site in the Tonafora area of Dunmanway was a
derelict, brown-field, waste site with weeds growing knee high. It was described by one of
the volunteers who lives in immediate proximity as “not nice to live next to”. People would
use the site for illegal dumping and sometimes for outdoor drinking sessions. Balls from the
neighbouring five-a-side football pitch would get lost in the high weeds and the area’s
overall reputation suffered as a consequence. Apart from a shortcut that led through the
plot the area did not experience any footfall by non-neighbours. The establishment of the
garden changed the characteristics significantly. The same volunteer, who had stated that
she did not experience the site as a nice place prior to the creation of the garden, now
experiences it as a much more positive place and would “not move for anything”. At the
same time she felt that the respect for the area had increased as well as the reputation of
the area. This seems to manifest itself in an increase in people using the area for leisure
activities such as walking (Horgan & Horgan, 2015). The garden is still used as a short cut by
the local population and the gardeners do not which to change this as they feel it is in the
best interest of the community to establish the garden as an accessible open part of the
community. The decision as to whether a fence should be erected around the garden was
therefore discussed at length and in the end the garden committee decided to erect a fence
“that is not keeping anyone out”. This resulted in a small fence being erected by the
members of the local men shed with the gates placed strategically in the path of the short
cut leading through the site. While these gates are closed when there are no activities in the
garden they are never locked and the fence can fulfil its main purpose which is to keep
roaming dogs out. Likewise, the doors to the poly tunnel are left unlocked and the
gardeners have so far not experienced any theft or vandalism (Harris, 2015).

24
4.2 .The Aims of the Garden
According to the three year strategic plan of the Dunmanway family Resource Centre (DFRC)
the goal of the community garden is:
“… to engage local families and groups in sharing and learning skills to promote healthy
eating and well-being and to provide opportunities for growing and cooking food in a fun,
sustainable and inclusive way. This will promote positive family and community
relationships which will reduce isolation, promote well-being and reflect cultural diversity”
(DFRC, 2013).
4.3. The Creation of the Garden and the Utilisation of Local Networks
The interest in the creation of a community garden as tool for community development
came from the management group of the DFRC and matured in 2012, during which the
DFRC applied for funding from Safe Food Ireland, a body committed to the promotion of
safe and nutritious food across Ireland. The potential site for the garden was easily
identified as it lies between the two local facilities of the DFRC and would often be passed
by the staff and patrons of the DFRC. Once the funding was in place the DFRC was able to
interest a group of locals, who had previously been involved in a different gardening
programme in the West Cork area, in volunteering for the Dunmanway Community Garden
project. In the summer of 2013 the work started (Harris, 2015). At the beginning of the
transformation process from brown-field site to gardening area was the cutting of the grass
through the volunteer group. This was done in small manageable steps as the cutting and
trimming of one acre of weeds and grass would arguably de-motivate even the most
dedicated volunteer. Once a small plot of land was cleared the DFRC initiated a number of
workshops where the volunteers could express their ideas regarding the lay-out and
characteristics of the garden on a small scale basis. During these workshops the overall
approach to gardening was also established. The steering group, made up by DFRC
management and volunteers, decided to take an organic, practical gardening approach
based on seasons with the application of mulching techniques to retain soil moisture and
suppress weeds. It was also agreed to erect signage in order to explain what was going on in
the garden to interested outsiders (Harris & Iyilikci, 2015).

25
What followed was the continuous development and transformation of the site on a step
by step basis. Once a section of the site was cleared from weeds, grass and stones the
infrastructure of the garden could be put in place. During this process local and individual
networks were utilised. One volunteer had contacts in the local county council and was able
to organise spare gravel for pathways within the garden. Another volunteer had contacts to
a horse owner and could provide horse manure for fertilizing purposes and yet another
volunteer owned a van and could shuttle tools and equipment to and from the garden
(Iyilikci, 2015). Resident gardener Selvi Iyilicki describes the policy of one step at a time as
extremely important for the creation and realisation of a project like the Dunmanway one. It
allows the volunteers to learn certain skills, pick up bits of information in relation to
gardening and to see what works in the garden and what doesn’t. The step by step
approach also avoids the “overstretching” of budget and human resources and keeps the
project manageable, while small cultivated areas serve as good examples for successful
gardening (Iyilikci, 2015). By the end of 2013 a number of raised beds had been established
in the garden, trees had been planted as well as shrubs and a hedge around the outside
perimeter fence. This was also the time to decide what to plant in the following spring. The
volunteers and the DFRC had a joint impact in this decision. As some of the garden produce
was to be used in the local meals on wheels and community meals project, staple foods
such as carrots, onions and potatoes were chosen. The influence of an Italian volunteer led
to the decision to plant Italian herbs such as Basil and Oregano (Harris & Iyilikci, 2015). The
first seeding of many plants had to be done in a centre for practical sustainability in nearby
Enniskeane as the construction of the poly tunnel was delayed and only finalised in late
spring of 2014. During this time fruit trees were planted as well. Once the poly tunnel was
set up seedlings could be transferred into the tunnel and with continuous weeding going on
over the summer, the first harvest in the autumn of 2014 soon approached. In the winter of
2014 another significant step for the garden was taken with the construction of a patio area
which serves as a meeting point for the volunteers and other locals (Iyilikci, 2015).

26
As a practical example of the activities in the garden I would like to use the gardening
schedule for the first six month of 2015 as established by resident gardener Selvi Iyilikci:
 February: Purchasing of outdoor seeds from organic centre, making of info
boards, cleaning of beds in poly tunnel, planting of broad beans outside,
planting of early potatoes in poly tunnel, planting of native trees.
 March: Sowing of seeds in trays in poly tunnel, planting of onions and garlic,
preparing of beds outside including digging of new beds, general
maintenance such as grass cutting.
 April: Sowing of additional seeds, transfer of seeds in trays to beds in poly
tunnel, general maintenance.
 May: Making support structures for climbing plants such as tomatoes,
mulching.
 June: Harvesting of salads, scallions and broad beans. First all fresco lunch!
4.4. The Role of the Dunmanway Family Resource Centre as a Facilitator of the Garden
Overall it can be said that the Dunmanway Family Resource Centre played an integral part
in the coordination and utilisation of local sources and in the overall establishment of the
garden. This is mainly due to the various assets of the centre. Before the construction of a
patio area within the garden the DFRC served as meeting point for decision making and
during bad weather. It also provided other, non-gardening skills for the project such as
administrative and managerial capabilities. This is a factor in the implementation of
community development projects that must not be underestimated and its importance is
reflected in the experiences of Iyilikcy. Based on her experience individually run projects are
more likely to encounter difficulties than facilitated programmes, because projects, such as
neighbourhood initiatives, often lack resources like access to funding, administration and
contacts (Harris & Iyilikci, 2015). The importance of the DFRC is widely acknowledged by the
volunteers and was described by one individual as the “glue” of the garden, while another
one simply said that without the DFRC there would be no garden. At the same time, the
workers of the DFRC have experienced the garden as a huge positive impact on their lives as
it gets them out of the office more often and has led to a healthier lifestyle due to increased

27
exercise and improved eating habits (Harris & Holt, 2015). Further to that can the
importance of the DFRC best be established through its role as an overall facilitator of nearly
all events and courses taking part in the garden. DFRC manger Ita Harris experienced varying
success with different targeting approaches for events. She found that the more generic an
event was the more people attended. Examples included the Christmas wreath making
event in the winter of 2014 or the barbeque during the summer of 2014. Events that were
targeted at specific individuals did generally not experience great turnouts such as the
gardening work shop for people who experienced loss, were nobody came. It seems that
individuals with special needs can be more easily integrated into the garden, and by
extension the community, through a referral process established with local social workers
(Harris, 2015).
4.5. Dunmanway Community Garden Characteristics
The Dunmanway Community Garden project is situated on an approximately one acre site
within the West Cork village of Dunmanway and the development of the derelict site started
in the summer of 2013 after the local family resource centre signed a five year lease for the
site with Cork County Council (Quinlan, 2013) (Harris, 2015). The main characteristics of the
garden are those of a School and Educational Garden, Therapeutic and Healing Garden and
an Entrepreneurial Garden. This judgement is based on the main activities carried out in the
garden. The educational aspect is represented through a link to the local pre-schools which
carry out parts of their outdoor-curriculum in the garden while additional school visits and
after school projects are planned. Further to that, socio-cultural activities are carried out.
They include a “munch bunch” family cooking class for disadvantaged families, cookery
classes for men and classes for families who have to plan their cooking according to a
budget. During these cooking classes, which take place in the DFRC, produce from the
garden is utilised (Harris, 2015). The participants of these classes therefore not only gain
from educational aspects but also benefit from a reduction of their money allocated
towards buying food. Many of them state that their food budget has reduced while their
food security has improved (Horgan, Horgan & Fallon, 2015). The therapeutic and healing
characteristics of the garden are rooted in a weekly therapeutic gardening group calling
themselves the “sunshine growers”. Members of this group are challenged with
psychological and/or physical issues. Their work in the community garden is as much about

28
sustainable social interaction for the group members as it is about gardening work. There
are also monthly workshops targeted at people with psychological and/or physical
challenges with attendance varying depending on the individual theme of the event (Harris,
2015). However it is important to note that not only the gardeners who are deemed to have
special issues can gain therapeutic or healing benefits from the garden. This aspect applied
to all interviewed volunteers who all stated that their well-being has improved since they
joined the community garden (Fallon et al, 2015). Or as volunteer Charlie Horgan explained
it “it (the community garden) gets me out of the house and I get to meet other people and I
feel a lot healthier for it” (Horgan C, 2015). The entrepreneurial feature of the Dunmanway
garden is not based on economic gains as in financial profit making, but aims at the creation
of socio-economic benefits. This manifests itself in a policy of “skills for food” where
volunteers take home food from the garden as a payback for their investment of time and
effort. This also led to their food budget being reduced and it furthered their cooking skills
thereby also gaining educational rewards. It is also planned to use gardening produce in the
local meals on wheels facilities while it has already improved food security for elderly
people who are provided with meals in the family resource centre (Harris & Holt, 2015).
Further to that the garden provides socio-economic benefit to those families participating in
the Family Growing Initiative where selected families tend to specific beds in the garden in
order to combat food poverty and promote food choice (Harris, 2015).
4.6. The Community and how it benefitted from the Garden
The West Cork town of Dunmanway could certainly be described as culturally complex. The
population of the town is approximately 1500 with a significant hinterland, numerous
primary schools and a large secondary school. Like many places in rural Ireland Dunmanway
suffers from poor infrastructure and limited options for young people. There is a large
alternative lifestyle community represented in town with many of its members being 2nd or
3rd generation members of this community and suffering from social and economic
disadvantages. This social composition of the greater Dunmanway community is very much
reflected in the social make-up of the community garden (Harris, 2015). Among the garden
volunteers are a high number of unemployed people and a significantly higher number of

29
non-Irish nationals than Irish nationals, the majority of which come from Great Britain,
Germany, Italy, Holland, France and Spain (Holt & Fallon, 2015). With the introduction of
workshops, for example Christmas-wreath making, the number of Irish nationals has begun
to rise. Most of the interviewed volunteers described it as a positive feature that the garden
brings so many different people and groups together, especially as their respective paths
might not cross normally (Fallon, Holt, Horgan, 2015).
Asked what the motivation was behind the creation of the project, project manager Ita
Harris said that one identified need of the community was the necessity for an accessible
and welcoming community project with specific initiatives (Harris, 2015). Based on the
volunteers’ feedback this requirement has most certainly been met. Other initiatives of the
project were less focused on the community as a whole but were more targeted at the
socially disadvantaged members of the community. The above mentioned “munch bunch”
family cooking programme was never designed to combat food poverty on a community
level but solely for low-income families; nevertheless this programme was open to everyone
who wanted to join. Other projects however could only be accessed through referral by the
local social welfare office such as the above mentioned Family Gardening Initiative (Harris,
2015). The motivations for participating in the garden and its projects seemed to be mainly
of a socio-economic nature with eight out of nine interviewees saying that social interaction
was the most important aspect for their participation. This was followed by educational
aspects with seven out of nine nominations. The growing of food was not a priority for the
volunteers with only one in nine participants describing it as an important aspect for his/her
involvement in the garden (Fallon et al, 2015). The overall numbers of volunteers was lower
than expected by the creators of the project. This however did not turn out to be a
disadvantage as the volunteers who got involved proved to be of a very high quality which
was actually beneficial as it helped those participants who were highly dependent on
support (Harris, 2015).
Based on the opinions and impressions provided by the participants of the projects it
becomes clear that they benefitted in ways that enhanced their economic, physical and
socio-economic well-being. All interviewed participants stated that they feel more
embedded in the community and that their overall well-being has increased since joining
the garden. However, even members of the greater Dunmanway community who choose

30
not to participate actively in the garden reaped certain benefits. Perhaps the most obvious
improvement for non-participants is that the garden has enhanced the area through the
transformation of a waste site into a garden. This means it provides a certain ecological
benefit to the community (Fallon, 2015). This transformation of the area has in return made
the garden a certain focal point where “people go even if they don’t participate” (Horgan M,
2015).
The successful implementation of community programmes not being held in the garden but
being related to it, such as the Parent and Toddler Baking Group or the Cooking with Mama
Maria Group, experienced great uptake. These initiatives were hosted by gardening
volunteers and produce from the garden was used in the groups. This increased the
understanding of the importance of good nutritional food among the participating
community members and created certain awareness among the initiators of the
programmes of their responsibility in relation to the provision of nutritional support and
healthy eating (Harris & Holt, 2015). Another very tangible benefit to members of the
Dunmanway community has been the employment of three persons on TÚS scheme
contracts during various stages of the project (Harris, 2015).
4.7. Difficulties and Problems during the Creation and Facilitation of the Project
While there were some conflicts among the project’s volunteers they were minor in nature
and mainly revolved around small operational issues such as tidiness and the use of tools. Of
greater significance were conflicts and difficulties with the neighbours who lived behind the
garden plot and did not participate in the project. One of their main concerns was the
impact the poly tunnel might have on the view from their houses. This led to a situation
where the proposed position of the poly tunnel had to be reconsidered because of these
resentments. Even though the changing of the tunnel’s position meant that it cannot obtain
the maximum amount of light it possibly could, the gardeners decided to move the tunnel’s
position out of the neighbours’ main line of sight. Another point of contention was a bench
that was used by the gardeners as a recreational place where they could sit down and relax
and catch a bit of sun. This bench was placed against a wall which separates the garden
from the back yard of one of the neighbours. The neighbour subsequently complained that
this bench would be an invitation for individuals to climb across the wall onto his property

31
and the bench was moved to a different position. The gardeners made attempts to engage
with the neighbours and invitations to visit the garden were issued on various occasions but
these invitations were not accepted. Despite the unwillingness of the neighbours to engage,
the gardeners plan to present the neighbours with surplus food after the next harvest in
order to promote inclusion or at least a more peaceful co-existence (Harris, 2015).
4.8. The Future of the Garden
The lease which the Dunmanway Family Resource Centre has signed with Cork County
Council runs for five years. At the time of writing it would be premature to speculate
whether it might be extended. Funding from Safe Food Ireland will end at the end of 2015
and costs associated with the garden will have to be met by other means. The introduction
of water charges will add to such costs and the construction of a water harvesting facility is
currently in the planning stages. Other costs will have to be met through donations and one
idea is to create a set up where surplus food from the garden is offered for a price to be
determined by the buyer on a “give as you can basis.” The steering group has also applied
for funding from the Grow It Yourself movement and the intention is to use it for an
extension of the school garden programme in order to spread the involvement among local
schools (Harris, 2015).
4.9. Analysis
In order to discuss the role community gardens can play in the creation of social capital and
community development it is arguably of importance to establish if these were the goals the
initiators of the project had in mind in the first place. The Dunmanway project was initiated
by the DFRC and as mentioned in chapter 4.2. among the core goals of the garden were the
promotion of “…positive family and community relationships…wellbeing and reflect cultural
diversity.” (DFRC, 2013) Based on these aims, and also based on the mission statement of
the DFRC which is “to build links between families and individuals and to reach out and
provide a range of services to encourage a community where everybody is valued and
supported”, it can surely be argued that the promotion of social capital and community
development was indeed a key aspect that led to the establishment of the Dunmanway
project.

32
The question that presents itself next is whether social capital has really been created
through the establishment of the project. This question can be answered by comparing the
Dunmanway project to the theory of Glover who conducted a case study on a community
garden in Canada. He described that the examined project capitalised on and also added to
the accumulation of social capital in its neighbourhood (Glover, 2004).
The theories of Glover and Bütikofer as described in chapter 2.6. are certainly reflected in
the Dunmanway project. The DFRC as the facilitators of the garden project was able to use
its contacts to a nearby centre for sustainability to recruit local volunteers involved in a
gardening course taking place there. During the implementation phase of the Dunmanway
project the volunteers used their own contacts to further their case, for example in the
acquisition of gravel and fertilizer. Later when the project was already established
individuals with special needs were integrated into the garden through established referral
processes. Even though these referral processes involved professional social workers from
the DFRC and the local social welfare office, they are still based on ties that were arguably
created to encourage mutually advantageous cooperation. They should therefore be viewed
as existing social capital ties.
Once established the garden proved to be an important tool in the creation of further social
capital. As mentioned in chapter 4.6. all interviewed participants stated that they felt more
embedded in the community after they had joined the garden project and four out of five
participants said that the social interaction with other volunteers was the main reason for
their participation. The gardening volunteers then went on to create more social capital and
to establish social ties among community members which had so far not been involved in
activities related to the garden. They did so by hosting events such as the Cooking With
Mama Maria classes and the Parent And Toddler Baking Group. During those events
produce from the garden was used. While those events were beneficial to the targeted
individuals they were certainly also important and meaningful to those who initiated them,
which is an important point in the creation of social capital. It is also important in successful
community development as pointed out in chapter 2.2. by Hoffman and Doody. Even
though it was not mentioned by any of the interviewees, the likely reasons why the
facilitation of such events are meaningful to its initiators are that because of their
voluntarism, the initiators and facilitators can gain respect, friendship and recognition in

33
their community. (Bütikofer, 2012). This seems an important point especially considering
the social and economic composition of the greater Dunmanway area in general and the
social make-up of the garden volunteers in particular.
The concepts of reciprocity and trust as cornerstones of social capital also seem to be
reflected in the Dunmanway project. This applies to the participants of the community
garden as well as to other community members who choose not to participate. Among the
participants’ reciprocity and trust manifest themselves in simple everyday tasks. A trip to
purchase a bulky item, be garden related or not, is now easier because one of the
volunteers owns a van. And in general the gardening volunteers feel that they know more
people now of whom they could ask a favour if needs be (Horgan M, 2015).
For non-participants the garden has proved beneficial as it has enhanced the area and has
become a destination point for walking trips (Horgan C, 2015). At the same time it seems
that the “open gate policy” as mentioned in chapter 4.1. has been reciprocated positively as
no theft or vandalism has occurred. It can therefore be said that the Dunmanway project
has successfully created social capital among a wide section of the local community.
The next question to be answered is whether the Dunmanway community garden has
contributed to community development efforts in Dunmanway. Given that the garden
project has transformed a brown–field waste site with a dubious reputation into a
destination point for walkers, it is obvious that a physical improvement has taken place. This
has been achieved through the active and voluntary participation by community members.
This participation has in return led to an improvement in the economic, physical and socio-
economic well-being of the gardening volunteers as outlined in chapter 4.6. Further to that,
the gardening project has led to an improvement in the lifestyle of the participants through
increased exercise and a better diet. At the same time, the use of garden produce has
improved diets and food security for elderly people who turn to the DFRC for the provision
of daily meals. The role of the garden as an educational tool for the local pre-schools must
not be underestimated as the socio-ecological effects of such school gardens can be
extremely beneficial to communities in the short and long-term as outlined in chapter 2.2.
Lastly the community garden has created three jobs in the shape of TÚS scheme contracts
since the establishment of the project in 2013.The community garden in Dunmanway has

34
therefore empowered the participating members of the community to actively participate in
the improvement and development of the Dunmanway community, while at the same time
improving physical and mental well-being. The question as to whether the Dunmanway
project has contributed to community development must therefore be answered with a
clear yes.
This development in Dunmanway has taken place in a truly inclusive manner. The projects
initiated by the garden management and the garden volunteers were generally generic in
their nature and looked towards the outside. The garden provided a place to bridge cultural
differences by bringing together people from many nationalities and different backgrounds
thereby creating a heterogeneous group which reflected the social make-up of the greater
Dunmanway area.
Based on the findings and analysis compiled above it is evident that the community garden
in Dunmanway has created and promoted social capital and community development in the
greater Dunmanway area.
It must now be examined whether the findings I made in Dunmanway are unique to this
project or if other community garden projects operate in similar circumstances and
developed similar results. Keeping in mind that community gardens vary in their
characteristics depending on the local needs (Ferries et al, 2001) it is arguably not easy to
compare different community gardens like for like. There are however a number of
underlying themes which are, according to Ferries, forming the social dimensions of
community gardens. Those are: food security and poverty, health, children and community.
These dimensions are all of importance in the garden in Dunmanway as I have illustrated in
chapter 4. Based on Madlener’s observations as illustrated in chapter 2.2. ownership, socio
cultural and ecological diversity are also of importance in community gardens. These
characteristics were also highlighted by Ferries et al (2009) and Turner (2011). Given the fact
that Ferries based his observations on studies conducted in California and Turners
observations stem from Australia while those of Madlener were made in Austria, it can
easily be argued that the circumstances in which the community garden in Dunmanway was
created and operates are quite typical for community garden projects. The same could be
said for the motivations of the volunteers with most of the Dunmanway volunteers saying

35
that the interaction with other volunteers was the most important aspect of their
participation. The same observation was made by Alaimo in her study of community
gardens in New York as pointed out in chapter 2.5.
The political aspect of community gardens as referred to by Madlener and Bütikofer in
chapter 2.2, was less pronounced in Dunmanway. While the garden is of an inclusive and
multi-cultural nature I did not experience the participants as being politically active or
viewing their project as a political statement.
A scientific profiling of the gardeners as carried out by Blaine, Parwinder, Ashley and Snider
in Cleveland was not possible in the case of the Dunmanway project. This is due to the small
sample but also due to the research method. The typical characteristics of field research
(participation, observation and communication) led to a situation where I would have been
uncomfortable to ask the participants about their income. Based on the general information
provided by the DFRC it can however be said that the number of unemployed people were
significantly represented in the project. Based on the aims of the projects facilitator, its
mission statement and the general make-up of the greater Dunmanway area this should not
come as a surprise. The tendency towards targeting the unemployed also seems to be
reflected in the times of which most events in the garden take place. Even though the
garden is always open it is arguably events such as Beginners Gardening and Sunshine
Gardening which aim to attract community members. However the vast majority of these
events take place during the morning.
Contrary to findings of Blaine, Parwinder, Ashley and Snider the gender balance in
Dunmanway was heavily skewed in favour of female participation with eight out of nine
interviewees being female. This ratio was also reflected among the other volunteers whom I
did not interview. I am however not suggesting that this is in any way intentional.
In relation to the participants physical proximity to the garden the findings in Dunmanway
reflected those of the study in Cleveland as all interviewed volunteers lived within 15
minutes of the garden site.

36
To promote the creation of similar projects and the long-term continuation of already
existing projects it is important to establish what makes community gardens such an ideal
vehicle for the promotion and development of the community and social capital. Francis’
argument cited in chapter 1.2., that the creation of social capital is usually the by-product of
activities made in order to reach other goals is certainly correct. Community gardens
provide a wide range of such activities. They promote physical activity through the
production of healthy foods. They create social ties that stretch across age and cultural
differences. They reduce food poverty and promote food choice. They improve mental well-
being and the physical characteristics of the area they are located in, and with the possible
exception of the physical activity all those activities create benefits for participants as well
as non-participants. These overarching benefits that can promote community development
in multiple ways make community gardens such an ideal tool to create inclusive,
reciprocated and socially productive societies.

37
Chapter 5
Conclusion
Community gardens have many characteristics. They function as places for recreational and
educational purposes. They provide room for entrepreneurial activities and ecological
actions and they can act as safe havens for people who seek support and social inclusion.
These characteristics are a reflection of societies’ needs for improvement. Community
gardens can address food poverty and provide healthy alternative food produce to some of
the most vulnerable people in society. They also provide physical improvements to the
areas they are established in and to the people living in these areas. These characteristics
make community gardens a focal point for many areas and a place where social networks
can be established and developed.
There are many opportunities where an individual can make social contacts but there are
certain places that are better suited to promote such creation of social capital than others.
Community gardens must be considered as an ideal place for such activities. A community
garden is an open place ideally suited to meet people. So is a pub, but unlike a pub a
community garden does not require money in order to benefit from it. A community garden
provides an overarching interest to those who participate. So does a sports club, but
participation in amateur sports can likewise be expensive and is generally limited to a
certain age range and fitness level. The absence of financial obstacles and the possibility to
grow healthy, nutritious food make community gardens an ideal place for a heterogeneous
mix of people who might otherwise not be able to benefit from such produce. Community
gardens do not only provide nutritious food, they also provide other health benefits such as
the opportunity to engage in physical activities through the gardening work and the
therapeutic effects gardening can provide. These jointly made experiences can create a
certain bond among the gardeners especially when their efforts are rewarded with quality
produce. In the case of the Dunmanway garden this became evident when an Italian
volunteer was able to harvest Italian herbs of a quality far outstripping those in local
supermarkets. At the same time a community garden provides economic benefits to those
involved through the possible reduction of their food budgets. Community gardens
therefore enable all people regardless of age, social background, physical and psychological

38
health to get involved in a wide range of activities, thereby gaining benefits such as
improved health, extended social networks, friendship, respect and recognition. At the
same time, community gardens can provide spill over benefits to other, non-participating
members of the community. Such benefits include improved diets, food choice and food
security through the provision of garden produce or meals made with such produce. Other
benefits which extend to non participants are the possible increase in the value of property
close to the garden especially when the garden has more of a park character.
It seems interesting that the production of food is not the most important aspect for the
majority of volunteers in community garden projects. Socio-economic aspects, such as
personal interaction and education were of higher importance in Dunmanway, but also in
other examined projects. However, the production of healthy, nutritious food is one of the
most tangible benefits to those community members who cannot actively participate in the
garden as such produce is more often than not distributed through community initiatives
like Meals On Wheels and similar programmes. For some elderly people, this might indeed
be the only tangible benefit the garden delivers. At the same time, such initiatives do
provide a basis for the socio-economic benefits experienced by the volunteers. The garden’s
produce is the medium that (re)connects community members and on the back of it the
garden fosters trust, tolerance and social integration. The community garden’s role as a
place of production must therefore not be underestimated as the produce can be invested
in other community activities and ultimately validates the act of volunteering. Not only do
the garden’s products validate volunteerism they also create new opportunities for further
activities.
The community garden in Dunmanway constitutes an ideal example of the multiple options
such a project offers in the creation of social capital and community development and how
these options can be utilised. The current volunteers have experienced a significant
improvement in their quality of life. Through the provision of educational activities and
employment opportunities these improvements have the potential to be of a long term
nature. The increased focus on the role as a school garden should likewise bring long term
benefits to the community. The activities carried out in the Dunmanway project reflect the
needs of the community in an ideal manner and this is made possible because the facilitator
of the project, the DFRC, has the best possible insights into these needs. It can therefore

39
create “tailor made” events for potential recipients and establish same through the use of
their managerial and administrative expertise. Additionally that the location of the garden
site is between the two local DFRC centres an important benefit as the project is in walking
distance of the facilitators and allows them to stay on top of things. While part of the
success of the Dunmanway project is certainly due to the local characteristics, it cannot
solely be explained by them. The increasing popularity of community gardens across the
world and in many different circumstances supports this argument. Once the physical
demands for a garden site are met the potential improvements a community garden can
deliver are immense. Whether the project is facilitated or run through a neighbourhood
initiative may not be insignificant for its success, but it is not the deciding factor. The key to
the success of community garden projects is that these projects take on a multi-dimensional
and almost self-perpetuating role. This multi-dimensional role in return develops a multi-
dimensional community whose members might have different motivations for joining the
garden, but have an overarching common goal: the improvement of the quality of life for
themselves and, through their involvement in a public project, the improvement of public
life in their locality.

40
Bibliography
AlaimoK.Reischl T.M.Ober-AllenJ.(2010) CommunityGardeneing,NeighborhoodMeetingsand
Social Capital. Journalof communityPsychology, Vol.38,No. 4, 497-514 (2010) Available:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcop.20378/pdf
AmericanTrails(2010) Physicalactivity facilities haveeconomicaswell ashealth benefits. March
2010. Available:http://www.americantrails.org/resources/economics/Economic-Benefits-Trails-
Open-Space-Walkable-Community.html Accessed:25/02/2015
Blaine T.W.ParwinderS.G.AshleyD.SniderD.(2010) ProfilingCommunityGardeners. Journalof
Extension.Vol.48 No.6. Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/2010december/a6.php Accessed:
13/03/2015
BütikoferB.(2012) Urban CommunityGardensasa Hotbed of Social Networks.MastersThesis
HumboldtUniversityBerlin.Available:
http://anstiftung.de/jdownloads/Forschungsarbeiten%20Urbane%20Grten/urb_gemeinsch_g.pdf
Accessed:27/02/2015
CSO (2011) Area profile forTown.DunmanwayCo.Cork.Available:
http://census.cso.ie/areaprofiles/areaprofile.aspx?Geog_Type=ST&Geog_Code=18024 Accessed:
25/02/2015
Der Spiegel (2006) Renta Plot:Germany’sGardenGhettos. SpiegelOnline International 11/04/2006
Available:http://www.spiegel.de/international/rent-a-plot-germany-s-garden-ghettos-a-
410799.html Accessed:28/01/2015
DFRC (2013) DunmanwayFamilyResource Centre. Threeyearstrategicplan and annualaction plan.
Available:http://dunmanwayfrc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Work-Plan-2014-2017.pdf
Accessed:25/02/2015
Dictionary.com(2014). Dictionary.comCommunity Garden. Available:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/community+garden accessed:05/11/2014
Dunmanway.ie (n.d.) Welcometo Dunmanway. Available: http://www.dunmanway.ie/ Accessed
25/02/2015
du Plessis,G,&Lekganyane,E(2010), 'The role of foodgardensinempoweringwomen:A studyof
Makotse Women'sClubinLimpopo', JournalOf Social DevelopmentIn Africa, 25, 2, pp.97-120,
SocINDEXwithFull Text,EBSCOhost,viewed1February2015.
Ecolife (2011). Ecolife.Dictionary: Whatisa Community Garden? Available:
http://www.ecolife.com/define/community-garden.html Accessed:15/11/2014
FallonA,HoltT, Horgan C, Horgan M, KellyN. (2015) (Volunteers) Personal interviewswithDirk
Fleischheuer15/01/2015, 22/01/2015
FerrisJ.Norman C.SempikJ.etal (2001). People,LandandSustainability:CommunityGardensand
the Social Dimensionof SustainableDevelopment. SocialPolicy & Administration. Vol.35,No.5
December2001 pp. 559 Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9515.t01-1-
00253/abstract Accessed:16/11/2014

41
FleckD. (2013) DasPotenzialInterkultureller Gärten als Lern- und BegegnungsortefürGlobales
Lernen – eine kritische Potenzial-Analyseanhand einesBeispielgartensin Wien. Available:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gemeinschaftsgaerten&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 Accessed:
01/02/2015
FrancisP. (2002) Social Capital,Civil SocietyandSocial Exclusion.InKothari Uand Minogue M(eds).
DevelopmentTheory and Practice. Basingstoke.Palgrave.Pp77;78.
GebhardU.G. (2013) Kind und Natur.Die Bedeutung derNaturfürdie psychischeEntwicklung.
SpringerVerlagHamburg.4th
editionPp111. Available: https://books.google.ie/books?id=E-
4oBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=positive+effekte+von+schrebergarten&source=bl&ots=J2
8tisFBtn&sig=irMpITpZoxIPAw9i2kGpkh0Nn80&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Qd_IVPHGJMSQ7AaI4YGgBQ&ved=
0CDYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=positive%20effekte%20von%20schrebergarten&f=false Accessed:
28/01/2015
GreenHeart Education(2007) The valueof schoolgardens. Available:
http://www.greenhearted.org/school-gardens.htmlAccessed:28/01/2015
GloverT.D. (2004) Social Capital inthe LivedExperiencesof CommunityGardeners. LeisureSciences,
26; 143-162, 2004. Available:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01490400490432064#.VM4mEHlyaM8 Accessed:
01/02/2015
Hancock T. (1999) People,partnershipandhumanprogress:Buildingcommunitycapital. Health
Promotion International. Vol.16.No.3.Available:
http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/3/275.full.pdf+html Accessed:10/03/2015
Harris Ita,2015. (DunmanwayFamilyResource Centre projectmanager) Personal interview with
DirkFleischheuer 15/01/2015
Hirsch J.(2013). Thievery,Fraud,Fistfightsand Weed:The otherside of Community Gardens.
ModernFarmer.com.06/12/2013 Available: http://modernfarmer.com/2013/12/robbery-drugs-
fistfights-dark-side-community-gardening/ Accessed:05/02/2015
HoffmanA.J.DoodyS.(2014) Builda fruittree orchard and theywill come:creatinganeco-identity
viacommunitygardeningactivities. Community Development. March24, 2014. Available:
http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/1/104.full Accessed:16/11/2015
HoltT. (2015) (DunmanwayFamilyResource Centre Manager) Personal interviewwithDirk
Fleischheuer22/01/2015
Horgan C. (2015) (Volunteerandneighbour) Personal interview withDirkFleischheuer15/01/2015
Horgan M. (2015) (Volunteerandneighbour) Personalinterview withDirkFleischheuer15/01/2015
ISS(2004) Indices of Social Development.Defining SocialDevelopment.Available:
http://www.indsocdev.org/defining-social-development.html Accessed:01/02/2015
Iyilikci S.(2015) (ResidentgardenerDunmanwayCommunityGarden) Personal interviewwithDirk
Fleischheuer03/02/2015

42
KimBF, PoulsenMN,MarguliesJD,Dix KL,PalmerAM (2014) Urban CommunityGardeners’
KnowledgeandPerceptionsof Soil Contaminant Risks.
PLoSONE 9(2): e87913. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087913 Available:http://0-
web.a.ebscohost.com.library.ucc.ie/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a60d5913-382c-42e0-ba60-
a17ba2b09938%40sessionmgr4004&vid=20&hid=4106 Accessed16/11/2014
SiegsdotterU.&Grahn P.(n.d.) What makesa Garden a HealingGarden? Journalof Therapeutic
Horticulture. Available:
http://www.protac.dk/Files/Filer/What_makes_a_garden_a_healing_garden_Stigsdotter_U__Grahn
_P.pdf Accessed28/01/2015
MadlenerN.(2009) Was sindGemeinschaftsärten? SustainableAustria,No.46March2009. Available:
http://www.nachhaltig.at/SusA46.pdfAccessed03/03/2015
McIlvaine-NewsadH.& PorterR. (2013). How doesyour Gardengrow?Environmental Justice
Aspectsof CommunityGardens. Journalof EcologicalAnthropology. Vol.16No.1. Pp69-73
Available:http://0-web.b.ebscohost.com.library.ucc.ie/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=9437b1ae-
cb73-4b82-b56f-
8ea6f7e74d73%40sessionmgr114&hid=110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&
AN=94308272 Accessed17/11/2014
MidgleyJ.(2013). Social DevelopmentandSocial Protection:New OpportunitiesandChallenges.
DevelopmentSouthern Africa. Vol.30No. 1. Pp 6. Available: http://0-
web.a.ebscohost.com.library.ucc.ie/ehost/detail/detail?vid=12&sid=a60d5913-382c-42e0-ba60-
a17ba2b09938%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4106&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9
h&AN=85221962 Accessed:16/11/2014
OhmerM.L. MeadowcroftP. FreedK.LewisE.(2009) CommunityGardeningandCommunity
Development:Individual,Social andCommunityBenefitsof aCommunityConservationProgramm.
Journalof CommunityPractise 17:377-399, 2009 Available:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10705420903299961#.VMjK8sJyb4g Accessed:
16/11/2015
OzzerE.J. (2007) The Effectsof School Gardenson StudentsandSchools:Conceptualizationand
ConsiderationsforMaximizingHealthyDevelopment. Health,Education &Behaviour, Vol.34(6) Pp
846-863. December2007. Available: http://www.kohalacenter.org/HISGN/pdf/Ozer_gardens-3.pdf
Accessed:28/01/2015
PavlovM.Y. (2014). DevelopmentSocial. ValueInquiry BookSeries. Vol.276, p128-129 Available:
http://0-web.a.ebscohost.com.library.ucc.ie/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a60d5913-382c-42e0-
ba60-a17ba2b09938%40sessionmgr4004&vid=15&hid=4106 Accessed:16/11/2014)
PeerNetBC(n.d)PeerNet. Whatiscommunity development? Available:
http://www.peernetbc.com/what-is-community-developmentAccessed:03/03/2015
PutnamR.D. (2000) Bowling alone. Simon& SchusterPaperbacks.New York.Pp19; 134-135
QuinlanA.(2013) CommunityGardenforDunmanway. TheSouthern Star29/07/2013. Available:
http://dunmanwayfrc.com/news_articles/community-garden-for-dunmanway/ Accessed
20/01/2015

43
SmithT. & ParpiaR. (2014). CommunityGardensyieldCommunityBenefits. Parks&Recreation.
October2014 pp80. Available: http://0-
web.b.ebscohost.com.library.ucc.ie/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=df151554-7393-4b97-ba6c-
7b51e2b8b09b%40sessionmgr198&hid=107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&
AN=99047451 Accessed:05/11/2014
Syme L.S.Rittermann M.L. The Importance of CommunityDevelopmentForHealthandWell-Being.
CommunityDevelopmentInvestmentReview. Available:
http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6223939.pdf Accessed05/11/2014
TurnerB. (2011). EmbodiedConnections:Sustainability,FoodSystemsandCommunityGardens.
Local Environment. Vol.16,No.6. July2011, pp509-522. Available:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13549839.2011.569537#.VGn4xcJyZMs Accessed:
17/11/2014
TheFreeDictionary(2014).TheFreeDictionarybyFarflex. SocialCapital. Available:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/social+capitalAccessed:15/11/2014
Wang H. Qui F. SwallowB.(2014) Can communitygardensandfarmers'marketsrelieve fooddesert
problems?A studyof Edmonton,Canada.Applied Geography.Vol.55.December2014. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143622814002112 Accessed05/02/2015
WorldBank (2014) WorldBank. Social DevelopmentOverview. Available:
http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/socialdevelopment/overview Accessed:01/02/2015
Zhu X. Woo S.E. PorterC. Brzezinski M.(2013). PathwaystoHappiness:FromPersonalitytosocial
NetworksandperceivedSupport. SocialNetworks. 35.2013 pp 382-393. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378873313000415 Accessed:17/11/2014

44
Appendix
List of questions in questionnaire:
Which is the most important aspect for you when participating in the garden?
Did you make positive experiences through the participation in projects connected to the
garden?
Were those projects initiated through the steering/management group or by volunteers
themselves?
Do you feel that you are more embedded in the community since you have joined the
garden?
Do you think that the community of Dunmanway has benefitted from the garden?
If yes to the above, how?
Did your food budget reduce?
Did your food security improve?
In your own words, which is the main reason for participating in the garden?
Which activities are being carried out in the garden?
What is the social composition of the community?
Is this social composition reflected in the garden?
How important is the DFRC for the garden?
Have there been any difficulties or differences of opinion in matters concerning the garden?
How are decisions regarding the garden reached in General? Votes? Discussions?
How was the garden planned? Was there a theme? Who decided what to plant?
What was the first, second… step when creating the garden?
Did the garden improve your attitude towards your neighbourhood/the area you live in?

45
Did you transfer the social network connections you made in the garden to other activities
outside the garden?
Has your investment in the garden earned you a “return” in terms of social networks? i.e do
you know more people who you could ask for a favour if need be…
Did you feel isolated within the community before you joined the community garden?
What was on the site before the garden was established and how did you experience it?
When developing programs did you design did you design them primarily to improve the
social capital of the individual by attracting large numbers or did you aim the programs at
small target groups in the hope that, even though they might not attract large numbers,
they might create a spill over effect, those eventually drawing in more participants?

The Role of Community Gardens in the Creation of Social Capital and Community Development in West Cork

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (15)

Similar to The Role of Community Gardens in the Creation of Social Capital and Community Development in West Cork

Similar to The Role of Community Gardens in the Creation of Social Capital and Community Development in West Cork (20)

The Role of Community Gardens in the Creation of Social Capital and Community Development in West Cork