Human–Nature Relations in Suburban Gardens

Power, Emma R.

doi:10.1080/00049180500050847

Cited by 111 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(There are also important links here with an increasing body of work on 'urban nature' which problematises the nature-culture binary, eg. Hinchcliffe et al, 2005;Longhurst, 2006;Power, 2005. While beyond the scope of this paper, I think this work has much to offer the concept of transrurality.…”

Section: S3 I Mean Ok So You Don't Haven't Got Lions and Hippopotamusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crossing divides: Ethnicity and rurality

Askins

2009

Journal of Rural Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper draws on research with people from African, Caribbean and Asian backgrounds regarding perceptions and use of the English countryside. I explore the complex ways in which the category 'rural' was constructed as both essentialised and relational: how the countryside was understood most definitely as 'not-city' but also, at the same time, the English countryside was conceived as part of a range of networks: one site in a web of 'nature places' across the country, as well as one rural in an international chain of rurals -specifically via embodied and emotional connections with 'nature'. I argue that alongside sensed/sensual embodiment (the non-representational intuitive work of the body), we need also to consider reflective embodiment as a desire to space/place in order to address the structural socio-spatial exclusions endemic in (rural) England and how they are challenged. I suggest that a more progressive conceptualisation of rurality -a 'transrural' open to issues of mobility and desire -can help us disrupt dominant notions of rural England as only an exclusionary white space, and reposition it as a site within multicultural, multiethnic, transnational and mobile social I explored issues regarding ethnicity, rurality and national belonging in contemporary England, and was tasked with writing a policy report alongside the thesis 2 . As I read the academic work around my research, I increasingly became aware of a dichotomy. There was a rich body of literature around ethnic identity, diversity, hybridity, multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, etc., including critical perspectives problematising these concepts and how they play out in society, but always and only embedded in the urban sphere (eg. Alexander, 2000;Amin, 2002; Back and Solomos, 2003;Brah,et al. 1999;Hesse, 2000;Mirza, 1997;Parekh, 2000a;2000b). At the same time, especially within geography, there was interest in the ways in which rurality/rural space is implicated within national identity construction, notions of belonging and spatial practices 3 . In the English context, the national imagery of rural space appeared to exclude ethnic minorities, among other groups, from accessing the countryside, both physically and emotionally (Cloke & Little, 1997;Milbourne, 1997). The connection between the rural as the 'genuine' England and not multicultural was highlighted in the Henderson and Kaur, 1999;Kinsman, 1995;Malik, 1992). However, there had been a lack of empirical work at that time to examine these issues further: ethnic minorities were perhaps too easily theorised and written as excluded 'rural others'. Indeed, Little (1999:438) voiced concern regarding the use of the term 'rural others' in general, "the lack of theoretical discussion around 'the other' and 'the same'", the paucity of recognition of the power relations complicit in such a categorisation, and the "static treatment of both individual and group identity".

show abstract

Section: S3 I Mean Ok So You Don't Haven't Got Lions and Hippopotamusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crossing divides: Ethnicity and rurality

Askins

2009

Journal of Rural Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Community gardens provide a place for residents to develop friendships, learn to share, exchange seeds, and help each other maintain individual and communal plant plots [8,20,26]. Other works provide suggestions to encourage people's participation in community gardening [13,21,25].…”

Section: Related Work Social Issues and Participation In Community Gamentioning

confidence: 99%

Information sharing, scheduling, and awareness in community gardening collaboration

Wang

Wakkary

Neustaedter

et al. 2015

Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Communities and Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community gardens are places where people, as a collaborative group, grow food for themselves and for others. There is a lack of studies in HCI regarding collaboration in community gardens and considering technologies to support such collaborations. This paper reports on a detailed study of collaboration in community gardens in Greater Vancouver, Canada. The goal of our study is to uncover the unique nature of such collaborative acts. As one might expect, we found considerable differences between community gardening collaboration and workplace collaboration. The contribution is the articulation of key considerations for designing technologies for community gardening collaboration. These include design considerations like volunteerism, competences and inclusion, synchronicity, and telepresence as unique aspects of community collaboration in community garden. We also articulate the complexities of community gardening collaboration, which raise issues like control, shared language, and collective ownership that exist more as conditions within which to design than "problems" to solve through technologies.

show abstract

“…Basándose en entrevistas con jardineros y en el análisis de dos populares revistas de jardinería, Power (2005) concluye que la jardinería es un proceso dinámico de colaboración, negociación, reto y competencia, al describir, ésta, las relaciones humanas con las plantas del jardín y sus sensaciones (37).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified