Résumés
Abstract
Vacant urban spaces are underutilized resources under threat that can be used to improve the quality of urban life and urban dwellers’ well-being. Yet, traditional (state or market oriented) approaches have failed to bring them to life, due to lack of necessary funds, investment interest or/and deficiencies in property rights. It has been argued (by scholars of different perspectives) that managing these spaces as commons constitutes a successful and sustainable practice, capable to address the social, political, environmental and nutritional needs of the respective community. Yet, the issue of defining this community remains controversial among commons’ scholars. Should the boundaries around the community be strict or fuzzy, and how important is group specification for the success of commons endeavours? The current paper aims to shed light to these questions. In particular, it seeks to explore the role that political ideology plays in prescribing community boundaries and the effect this (usually unspoken) rule has in the sustainable management of the resources. In doing so the paper employs the social–ecological systems (SES) framework to analyse two urban community garden initiatives of urban commons located in Athens, Greece, that differentiate on the degree by which membership is open and subject to political conviction. We find that adherence to a specific political ideology may increase community coherence but jeopardizes the sustainable management of the common resource, since the latter simply becomes a means of political expression, rather than the primacy concern of the group. This finding has certain implications for both theory and policy.
Keywords:
- Ideology,
- Openness,
- Case study,
- Urban space,
- Athens,
- Self-management,
- Commons,
- Public space,
- Community,
- Greece,
- Vacancy
Résumé
Les espaces urbains vacants sont des ressources sous-utilisées et menacées qui peuvent servir à améliorer la qualité de vie dans la ville et le bien-être de ses habitants. Cependant, les approches traditionnelles (qu’il s’agisse du marché ou de l’État) ne sont pas parvenues à les faire vivre, faute de financement nécessaire, d’investissement, d’intérêt et/ou à cause de déficiences dans les droits de la propriété. Des spécialistes issus de courants de pensée différents soutiennent que la gestion de ces espaces en tant qu’espaces communs constituerait une pratique fructueuse et durable, capable de répondre aux besoins sociaux, politiques, environnementaux et nutritifs de leurs communautés respectives. Toutefois, la définition de cette communauté demeure un problème controversé pour les spécialistes des communs. Les barrières autour de la communauté doivent-elles être strictes ou diffuses ? Et, quelle est l’importance de la spécificité du groupe pour la réussite des efforts communs ? Cet article cherche à éclairer ces questions. Plus particulièrement, il cherche à explorer le rôle de l’idéologie politique dans la définition des limites des communautés et les effets de cette norme (dont on ne parle pas d’habitude) sur la gestion durable des ressources. Pour ce faire, cet article applique le cadre des systèmes socio-écologique (SES) dans l’analyse des initiatives à l’origine de deux jardins communautaires dans des communs urbains situés à Athènes en Grèce et qui se distinguent l’un de l’autre par le degré d’ouverture de leur adhésion et si celle-ci est, ou non, sujette à des questions d’orientation politique. Nous croyons que l’adhésion à une idéologie politique spécifique peut améliorer la cohésion de la communauté, mais compromet la gestion durable de la ressource commune, vu que cette dernière devient un simple moyen d’expression politique plutôt que la préoccupation principale du groupe. Cette découverte présente certaines conséquences pour la théorie comme pour la pratique.
Mots-clés :
- Biens communs,
- Espace public,
- Espace urbain,
- Communauté,
- Grèce,
- Idéologie,
- Étude de cas,
- Athènes,
- Autogestion,
- Inoccupation
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Agrawal, Arun. 2001. “Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources.” World Development 29 (10):1649–72.
- Anthopoulou, Theodosia, Sofia Nikolaidou, Maria Partalidou, and Michael Petrou. 2017. “The Emergence of Municipal Allotment Gardens in Greece in Times of Crisis. Governance Challenges for New Urban Gardening Practices.” In Toward Sustainable Relations Between Agriculture and the City, edited by Christophe-Toussaint Soulard, Coline Perrin, and Elodie Valette, 181–99. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71037-2_11.
- Arvanitidis, Paschalis A, and Fotini Nasioka. 2017. “Urban Open Greenspace as a Commons.” Der Öffentliche Sektor 43 (1):19–32.
- Arvanitidis, Paschalis A., and George Papagiannitsis. 2020. “Urban Open Spaces as a Commons: The Credibility Thesis and Common Property in a Self-Governed Park of Athens, Greece.” Cities 97 (February):102480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102480.
- Arvanitidis, Paschalis, and Fotini Nasioka. 2018. “From Commons Dilemmas to Social Solutions: A Common Pool Resource Experiment in Greece.” In Institutionalist Perspectives on Development, edited by Spyros Vliamos and Michel S. Zouboulakis, 125–42. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98494-0_8.
- Basurto, Xavier, and Elinor Ostrom. 2009. “The Core Challenges of Moving Beyond Garrett Hardin.” Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research 1 (3):255–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/19390450903040447.
- “Botanical Garden in Petroupoli.” n.d. Accessed July 10, 2021. http://votanikoskipos.blogspot.com/2009/11/blog-post.html.
- Butler, ARH. 2013. “Collective Action in UK Urban Community Growing Projects: A Comparative Analysis.” PhD thesis, Utrecht University.
- Cox, Michael, Gwen Arnold, and Sergio Villamayor Tomás. 2010. “A Review of Design Principles for Community-Based Natural Resource Management.” Ecology and Society 15 (4):art38. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03704-150438.
- Feinberg, Arthur, Elena Hooijschuur, Nicole Rogge, Amineh Ghorbani, and Paulien Herder. 2021. “Sustaining Collective Action in Urban Community Gardens.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 24 (3):3. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.4506.
- Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons: The Population Problem Has No Technical Solution; It Requires a Fundamental Extension in Morality.” Science 162 (3859):1243–48. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243.
- Kim, Gunwoo, Patrick A. Miller, and David J. Nowak. 2018. “Urban Vacant Land Typology: A Tool for Managing Urban Vacant Land.” Sustainable Cities and Society 36 (January):144–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.09.014.
- McGinnis, Michael D., and Elinor Ostrom. 2014. “Social-Ecological System Framework: Initial Changes and Continuing Challenges.” Ecology and Society 19 (2):art30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230.
- McMichael, Anthony J. 2000. “The Urban Environment and Health in a World of Increasing Globalization: Issues for Developing Countries.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 78 (9):1117–26.
- Meinzen-Dick, Ruth, Monica DiGregorio, and Nancy McCarthy. 2004. “Methods for Studying Collective Action in Rural Development.” Agricultural Systems 82 (3):197–214.
- “Nature Club of Vrilissos.” n.d. Accessed July 10, 2021. https://www.vrilisos.gr/activities/garden.html.
- Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Ostrom, Elinor. 2005. “Doing Institutional Analysis Digging Deeper Than Markets and Hierarchies.” In Handbook of New Institutional Economics, edited by Claude Menard and Mary M. Shirley, 819–48. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-25092-1_31.
- Ostrom, Elinor. 2006. “The Value-Added of Laboratory Experiments for the Study of Institutions and Common-Pool Resources.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 61 (2):149–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2005.02.008.
- Ostrom, Elinor. 2009. “A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems.” Science 325 (5939):419–22. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133.
- Ostrom, Elinor. 2011a. “The Challenges of Achieving Conservation and Development.” The Annual Proceedings of the Wealth and Well-Being of Nations 4:21–27.
- Ostrom, Elinor. 2011b. “Reflections on ‘Some Unsettled Problems of Irrigation’.” American Economic Review 101 (1):49–63. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.1.49.
- Pagano, Michael A, and Ann O’M Bowman. 2000. Vacant Land in Cities: An Urban Resource. Brookings Institution, Center on Urban; Metropolitan Policy.
- Poteete, Amy R., and Elinor Ostrom. 2008. “Fifteen Years of Empirical Research on Collective Action in Natural Resource Management: Struggling to Build Large-N Databases Based on Qualitative Research.” World Development 36 (1):176–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.02.012.